A plaintiff in a commercial suit cannot overreach an earlier order disallowing a document by seeking to tender the same document at the stage of recording of evidence.

$~4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 1823/2023 & CM APPL. 57682/2023

BUCKBOX TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Gautam Narayan and Mr. Mrinal

Kumar Sharma, Advocates

versus

SUMAN JAIN

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Sumit Jain, SPA Holder of

Respondent, in person

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1.

This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns

the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the District Judge, Commercial Court-

03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘Commercial Court’) in

CS (COMM) No. 485/2021, titled as ‘Suman Jain v. Buckbox

Technologies Pvt. Ltd.’ whereby the Commercial Court has dismissed the

Petitioner’s application seeking de-exhibition of documents, with costs of

Rs. 3,500/- payable to the Respondent.

1.1.

The Petitioner is the defendant and the Respondent is the plaintiff.

The suit has been filed seeking recovery of Rs. 23,08,927/- (i.e., principal of

Rs. 20,52,380/- + interest of Rs. 2,56,547/-) along with pendente lite and

future interest.

Digitally Signed

By:MAHIMA SHARMA

Signing Date:25.12.2023

17:15:28

Signature Not Verified

2.

Mr. Sumit Jain has entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

He states that he has been duly authorised by Power of Attorney dated

21.09.2023 to represent the Respondent.

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the submissions

recorded in the previous order dated 07.11.2023. He states that the

documents in questions were disallowed by the Commercial Court vide

order dated 25.03.2023 and therefore, the Respondent illegally sought to

exhibit the disallowed documents at the stage of tendering before the Local

Commissioner.

3.1.

He states that after this Court’s order dated 07.11.2023, in the

interregnum, the recording of evidence on behalf of the defendant stands

concluded and the matter is now listed before the Trial Court on 02.01.2024

at the stage of the final arguments.

3.2.

In addition, he states that he would like to draw this Court’s attention

to the proceedings recorded by the Local Commissioner on 07.10.2023 at

paragraph 15 while marking exhibit PW-1/15 Colly, which reads as under:

is Exhibited as PW1/15. (COLLY) running from 4 to 11. (objected by the

counsel for the defendant to be decided by Honble Court.- This

document was earlier sought to be bring [sic] on record by the plaintiff

by way of separate application filed before this Honble court. However

vide order dated 25.03.2023 this Honble court has specifically denied to

accept this document on record. Now by rerouting the procedure the

same document which was earlier denied cannot be placed on record.

Answer by the AR of the plaintiff; the judge has given an opportunity to

place on record the transcript evidence at the time of producing the

evidence.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

3.3.

He states that Mr. Sumit Jain, the authorised representative (‘AR’) of

Digitally Signed

By:MAHIMA SHARMA

Signing Date:25.12.2023

17:15:28

Signature Not Verified

the plaintiff made an incorrect statement before the local Commissioner that

the Trial Court had granted permission for tendering this electronic evidence

and transcripts at the time of leading evidence.

3.4.

He states that therefore, the prayer of the Petitioner herein for de-

exhibiting the PW-1/15 be accepted and the impugned order dated

27.10.2023 be set aside.

4.

The Respondent’s AR, Mr. Sumit Jain, fairly admits that there is no

order of the Trial Court permitting the plaintiff to submit the audio recording

and transcript at the stage of evidence. He states that he made this statement

before the Local Commissioner on the basis of the oral discussions at the

hearing held before the Commercial Court on 25.03.2023.

4.1.

He further states that since he has stepped into the witness box as the

AR of the plaintiff, the direction, if any contained in orde