SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment/ Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment/ Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment/ Order? Yes/No

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1860/2025

Gist:

Head Note:

Cases referred:

1. (2021) 13 SCC 71

2. (2020) 15 SCC 585

3. (2004) 2 SCC 267

4. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 583

5. (1994) 2 SCC 558

6. (2001) 8 SCC 97

7. 2024 SCC Online AP 4102

8. 2020 (10) SCC 706

9. 2025 SCC OnLine AP 51

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli)

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 co