Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak and Hirdesh, JJ.
Manoj Gupta v. Sharma Advertising
Miscellaneous Petition No. 5394 of 2024 (G);
Decided on 9.1.2025
Key Points: - Petitioner-defendant challenged orders allowing respondent-plaintiff to produce documents post-plaint filing under section 151 CPC and Order 7 Rule 14 CPC in a transferred commercial suit (!) (!) - Suit filed in 2015 for recovery of advertising charges was transferred to Commercial Court in 2020 under section 15 of Commercial Courts Act (!) (!) - Plaintiff sought permission for bills missed due to bona fide mistake via IA under section 151 CPC (2023) and later under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, both allowed by Commercial Court (!) (!) (!) (!) - Commercial Courts Act requires plaint to include declaration that all relevant documents in plaintiff's possession have been disclosed, with verification via affidavit under Order VI Rule 15A (!) (!) (!) (!) - Defendant argued post-transfer production prohibited, especially after Statement of Truth and affidavits under Order 11 (!) (!) (!) - Court held procedural laws are subservient to substantial justice; violations allowed if no prejudice to opponent and due to bona fide mistake (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - No prejudice to defendant as opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal evidence remains (!) - Petition under Article 227 dismissed; impugned orders affirmed, with direction to decide pending IAs and suit expeditiously (!)
ORDER
Per: Justice Hirdesh:-
1. This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner- defendant against order dated 7th of February, 2024 as well as subsequent order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Sixth Civil Judge, ClassI, Gwalior (in short '' the Commercial Court'') in COM No.04 of 2020 (arising out of original Regular Civil Suit No.4-B of 2015) whereby application filed by respondent- plaintiff under section 151 of CPC (IA No.01 of 2023, dated 21.2.2023) for taking documents (three bills) on record, which could not be exhibited at the time of filing of plaint, has been allowed as well as subsequent application filed by plaintiff under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC seeking production of bills and paper publications has been allowed.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of present petition, in short, are respondentplaintiff (Firm) filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior on 28th of August, 2015, seeking recovery of money of Rs.55,33,021/- along-with interest and cost of litigation, pleading therein that respondent is an Advertising Agency, through which petitioner- defendant had got certain advertisements published in Newspapers and he did not make payment of entire amount due to the plaintiff as charges in regard to advertisements.
In reply, defendant filed his WS and denied plaint averments. It was pleaded that he had paid entire amount due and plaintiff had forged the Bills for advertisements which were not even published in newspapers. An application under Order 11 rule 12 of CPC was filed by him on 5.2.2016 and the same was allowed by the Civil Court vide order dated 8.3.2016, with a direction to plaintiff to file an affidavit.
In pursuance thereof, plaintiff submitted an affidavit in the shape of application under Order 11 rule 13 of CPC. In counter, defendant filed an application under Order 11 rule 21 read with section 151 of CPC on 11.2.2020 seeking dismissal of suit. Plaintiff filed its affidavit under Order 11 rule 12 of CPC on 19.22020.
Vide order dated 19.10.2020, the instant suit filed on behalf of plaintiff was transferred by the Civil Court to the Commercial Court in exercise of powers vested under section 15 of COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015, whereby the instant transferred suit was subsequently renumbered as COMM No.04 of 2020. Plaintiff filed an application on 21.2.2023 under section 151 of CPC before the Commercial Court, seeking permission to get the bills exhibited in evidence, pleading that bills pertaining to the advertisements published in newspapers between 15th of March, 2014 and 17th of September, 2014 could not be produced on account of bona fide mistake and the bill dated 31.1.2014 could not be placed by it on record at the time of filing of plaint.
In reply, on 16th of June, 2023 defendant filed his reply to the application filed by plaintiff under section 151 of CPC, inter alia alleging that the copies of forged bills were sought to be brought on record by plaintiff in order to harass him and the application is not supported by any affidavit, therefore, the same deserves to be rejected.
The Commercial Court allowed application of plaintiff under section 151 of CPC vide order dated 7th of February, 2024. Therefore, defendant is before this Court.
3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner- defendant that it was necessary for plaintiff to produce all documents on which plaintiff relied in plaint averements within thirty days from the date on which, the instant civil suit was transferred to Commercial Court. The Commercial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing application of plaintiff under section 151 of CPC, which was, in effect, an application under Order 7 rule 14(3) of CPC and the same is prohibited in Commercial Suit as per provisions of COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015.
By way of IA No.11938 of 2024, petitioner- defendant sought amendment of pleadings of present petition and bring additional documents on record and contended that plaintiff
Procedural violations should not impede justice, and courts must favor substantial justice over rigid adherence to rules, particularly when no prejudice to the opposing party has been demonstrated.
The inherent powers of the court allow the acceptance of documents essential for a case, even if procedural provisions are misquoted, prioritizing access to relevant evidence.
The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural timelines in commercial disputes, concluding that introducing additional documents post-evidence closure undermines the intent of the Commercial Co....
The court affirmed that documents not disclosed with the written statement in commercial cases cannot be admitted, but contradictory decisions on evidence closure were ruled unsustainable.
Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.
In commercial litigation, negligence or inadvertence does not constitute 'reasonable cause' for late document disclosure; strict adherence to procedural timelines is mandatory under the Commercial Co....
(1) After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and b....
Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) of the CPC permits document production to counter claims made by defendants, allowing flexibility in commercial suits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
