IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 3986 of 2024 M/s. Jadob Electric Co.

VS.

Durgapur Projects Limited & Anr.

With CO 4214 of 2024 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sharanya Chatterjee Mr. Saptak Naskar ….. advocates For the WBSEDCL (in CO 3986 of 2024) : Mr. Debjit Mukherjee …. advocate For the WBSEDCL (in CO 4214 of 2024) :Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee …. advocate Reserved on : 06.05.2025 Judgment on : 15.05.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. These Civil Revision Applications arise out of the same suit between the self same parties and for such reason the same were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. These applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are at the instance of the plaintiff. The order being no. 66 dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Asansol in Money Suit (Commercial) no.7 of 2024 is under challenge in CO 3986 of 2024. CO 4214 of 2024 is directed against an order being no. 59 dated 15.12.2023 passed in the aforesaid Money Suit.

3. The petitioner herein instituted a Money Suit (Commercial) no. 7 of 2024 before the learned Commercial Court at Asansol praying for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,61,61,709/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum against the opposite party herein. The opposite party no. 2 is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement.

4. During cross examination on 24.08.2023, PW1 was shown four letters which have been marked as exhibits. The petitioner filed an application for recalling the PW 1 for the purpose of relying upon some additional documents.

5. The learned Trial Judge, by an order being no. 59 dated 15.12.2023, rejected the application for recalling. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application praying for expunging the documents which were marked as Exhibit-A,B,C and D. By the order being no. 66 dated 23^rd July, 2024, the application for expunging the exhibits stood rejected.

6. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Judge, in an earlier order dated 12th July, 2023 recorded that the defendant no. 2 will not produce any document in support of the statements made in clauses (f) and (g) of paragraph 22 of the written statement. He further submitted that the defendant no. 2 did not disclose the documents along with written statement and for such reason the plaintiff/petitioner herein did not get any opportunity to cross-examine the defendant-witness on such documents. He further submitted that in order to controvert the said additional documents of the defendant no. 2, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to recall his own witness. Mr. Chatterjee placed reliance upon Order XI Rule 1 (7) and 1 (10) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in support of his contention that the defendant shall not be allowed to rely on documents which were in the defendant’s power, possession, control and custody and not disclosed along with the written statement. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that Rule 5 of Order XI of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 permits a party to a proceeding to produce documents. He further submitted that learned Trial Judge ought to have allowed the petitioner to produce the documents in support of its case by recalling the witness. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that the learned Trial Judge rejected the application for expunging the exhibit nos. A, B, C and D from the list of exhibited documents by applying the provisions laid down under Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1 as well as Order XIII Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure without appreciating that the aforesaid provisions have no manner of application to commercial suits pending before Commercial Courts in view of Rule 7 of Order XI of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He, therefore, submitted that the order impugned suffers from total non-application of mind by the learned Trial Judge. Mr. Chatterj