ORDER :

Balaji Medamalli, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition was filed against the Order dated 18.06.2025, passed in I.A.No.114 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.16 of 2020 on the file of Special Court For Trial And Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, whereby the application filed under Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.114 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.16 of 2020, seeking leave of the Court to receive the documents mentioned in the application in the interest of justice and equity. Along with the said application, as many as 25 documents were filed, which are be received as documents in the above said suit.

3. Resisting the said application, the respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit contending that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 do not permit the parties to introduce additional documents after the fixation of schedule and Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC is not the correct provision of law, and in fact, the CPC has no application insofar as receiving of documents at a belated stage. It was also contended that the description of the documents as well as the relevancy was also not properly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application. As per the amended CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes, filing of documents at appropriate stage is mandatory and the same cannot be permitted at a later point of time, no judicial discretion is vested in the courts for doing so. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff that the cause shown in the affidavit that documents were misplaced in the office of the petitioners, thereby, they could not file those documents which are essential documents to support the case of the petitioners and subsequently, after the documents were traced out, they were advised to file a petition and there is no willful default or negligence on their part in filing the said documents was refuted by the respondent asserting that there is no reason, much less sufficient cause, has been shown to receive the documents and the petitioners/defendants have slept over for more than five years, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as sought in the said I.A.

4. Considering the submissions of the counsel on either side, learned Special Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that there is an inordinate delay of about five years in filing the application to bring the proposed documents on record and there is no explanation except stating that the same were misplaced in the office. The trial court further observed that liberal interpretation cannot be done in respect of the provision of Commercial Courts Act, particularly, when the delay is about more than five years.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants filed the present revision petition.

6. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the documents were misplaced in the office of the petitioners and that the present application is filed immediately after they were traced out. In fact, in the written statement filed in the above commercial suit (which was subsequently transferred and numbered as C.S.No.2 of 2019 before the Commercial Court at Vijayawada), at Para 13, the right to file additional written statement in the event of new facts coming to light, was reserved by the defendants. It was further contended that all the documents are public documents and defendants being the State, there is no possibility of manipulation or fabrication of documents, as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. The documents are crucial for the purpose of adjudication of the matter and also in the interest of public exchequer as the claim is against the State. It was further submitted that an additio