J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 21.01.2023, passed by the Additional District Judge-02 (Commercial Court), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’), in CS (COMM) No. 7/2018 titled as “Vias Dev Vs. M/s Bhutani and Company Pvt. Ltd.”(‘commercial suit’) whereby, the Trial Court, allowed the Respondent’s application filed under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and enabled the Respondent, to bring additional documents on record in the commercial suit.

1.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant and the Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the commercial suit. The commercial suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 11,71,107/- along with interest at 18%.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Brief facts

2. It is stated that the Respondent had provided lace work services to the Petitioner from the year 2012 till 2017, in pursuance to which Respondent had raised invoices to the tune of Rs. 19,26,107/-.

2.1. It is stated that there exists no dispute regarding the invoices raised from 2012 until September 2015 and the claim for pending amount of Rs. 11,71,107/- is purportedly for the work carried out from September 2015 till 2017. It is the case of the Petitioner that no amount is due and payable to the Respondent and the entire payment has been made.

2.2. It is stated that the Respondent relying on the alleged pending amount of Rs. 11,71,107/- filed two false compliant cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, bearing C.C. No. 13525/ 2018 for the Cheque No. 608770 and C.C. No.13289/2018 for the Cheque No. 608768, in two (2) separate jurisdictions at Saket Courts; and also filed a commercial suit, bearing C.S. (Comm.) No. 7/2018.

2.3. It is stated that on 21.09.2021, the amended written statement was filed by the Petitioner along with an application for condonation of delay and the same was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.01.2023.

2.4. It is stated that the Respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC to bring on record additional documents i.e., Invoice No. 051 dated 03.08.2015 and the ledger maintained by the Respondent, along with replication.

2.5. It is stated that the Respondent has alleged in the application that the Invoice no. 051 is in the custody of both the parties.

2.6. It is stated that the Trial Court erred in allowing the said application vide impugned order 21.01.2023 without considering the submissions of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Petitioner and considering the law, which restricts the plaintiff in the commercial suit from filling documents at this belated stage in the proceedings.

Arguments of the Petitioner

3. Mr. Rajat Aneja, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that pursuant to the admission in the cross examination dated 06.03.2019 and 19.08.2019 of the Respondent, in the criminal complaint proceedings which proved that the outstanding amount had already been received by the Respondent herein; it was thereafter that Respondent deliberately, in order to build a case for himself in the commercial suit has tried to bring the said additional documents on record.

3.1. He states that the Trial Court has neither looked into the arguments made by the Petitioner nor considered the judgments given, since the Trial Court has not even recorded the defence of the Petitioner in the impugned order dated 21.01.2023.

3.2. He has relied upon the judgment dated 02.05.2022 of this Court in CM(M) No. 405/2022 titled as Bela Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. Anuj Textiles

2022:DHC:1772, has held that:

"23. Moreover, as the learned Commercial Court correctly held, the written statement and counter-plaint were accompanied by a Statement of Truth, in which it was specifically stated thus:

6. I say that all documents and the power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the