Procedural adherence is crucial in commercial disputes; late applications for additional documents require compelling justification, which the petitioners failed to provide.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts-04), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Trial Court‟) in CS DJ 2070/2018, titled as “Mohan Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sapan Ahlawat & Anr.” whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents.

2. Petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in CS DJ 2070/2018 which is pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court.

3. The factual background leading to institution of the present petition reveals that petitioner no.1 is the sole proprietor, carrying on the business of readymade garments under the name of M/s Anie Smith Retail India, the petitioner no.2 company. On the other hand, the respondent is a corporate entity engaged in the manufacturing and retail sale of apparels and accessories under its brand name “Blackberrys”.

4. On 02.07.2018, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for the recovery of Rs. 14,36,441/- before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, summons were issued and subsequently, the petitioners filed their written statement on 20.09.2018. However, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.11.2018 observed that the written statement required clarifications, as the pleadings of the petitioners in the written statement and their submissions before the Court were not in harmony.

5. On 10.12.2018, the petitioners moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement along with relevant documents. Vide order dated 16.10.2019, the learned Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application. The said order attained finality as the petitioners did not file an appeal against the said order.

6. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 CPC to direct the respondent to place certain documents on record which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 23.02.2023. Additionally, the learned Trial Court framed issues based on the pleadings of the parties and listed the matter for recording the evidence of the respondent herein. On 15.09.2023, the evidence of the respondent was closed in affirmative and the matter was put up for recording of defendant‟s evidence. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court closed the right of the petitioners herein on 02.11.2023.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a petition bearing No. CM(M) 1962/2023 before this Court. By an order dated 18.12.2023, this Court allowed the petition and opened the right of the petitioners to lead defendant‟s evidence, contingent upon payment of previous costs of Rs. 9,000/- and additional costs of Rs. 25,000/- in favor of the respondent.

8. On 21.12.2023, the petitioners filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC seeking the leave of the Court to produce additional documents crucial for the just determination of the case. These documents comprise of email correspondences exchanged between the parties during the business proceedings in 2016-2017.

9. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2023, dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground that the petitioners failed to provide any compelling reason for not filing the application earlier, despite their awareness of the importance and existence of these documents.

Additionally, the learned Trial Court held that the application was deliberately filed at the fag end of the matter, seemingly to prolong the disposal of the case. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said order and have assailed the same before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that technical and procedural hurdles should not imp