* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of order: 8^th August, 2024 + CS(OS) 361/2012 TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Ms.Divya Kapoor, Advocate.

versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA &ANR .....Defendants Through: Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Advocate for D-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

REVIEW PETITION 150/2023

1. The instant review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff seeking review of the judgment dated 29^th March, 2023 passed by this Court in application bearing IA No.

8392/2018.

2. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter “the Act”) seeking permission to place on record additional documents. Vide the impugned judgment, the said application was dismissed by this Court on various grounds, one of them being, the application was filed to delay the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Signature Not Verified REVIEW PETITION 150/2023 Page 1 of 24 Digitally Signed the impugned judgment is bad in law and there is an error apparent on the face of the record which makes the impugned judgment liable to be set aside.

4. It is submitted that this Court committed an error apparent in failing to apply the test under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for placing the documents on record that were not in the power, possession, control or custody of the petitioner herein at the time of filing of the captioned suit.

5. It is submitted that this Court failed to appreciate that the test in Order XI Rule 1 (5) read with Order XI Rule 1 (12) of the Act, 2015 is that the documents that were not in power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit do not require the plaintiff to show reasonable cause, or indeed even to seek leave of the Court to file the said documents.

6. It is submitted that it is the right and duty of the plaintiff to file all the documents that come to his attention during the course of the suit and the Court cannot deny the right to bring the said documents on record.

7. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the position of law with respect to the documents being filed under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as amended by the Act, 2015, wherein, it has been specifically held that rigors of Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as amended by the Act, 2015, applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint.

8. It is further submitted that it has been clearly held by the Hon’ble Signature Not Verified REVIEW PETITION 150/2023 Page 2 of 24 Digitally Signed Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734, that no reasonable ground for non- disclosure of such documents, as required under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as amended by the Act, 2015 needs to be established by the plaintiff in cases where it has been averred that the documents sought to be placed on record have been found subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody at the time when the plaint was filed.

9. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4012, while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rigours of Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC, as amended by the Act, 2015 are applicable only on the documents which were in the possession and control of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the documents along with the plaint and not on such documents, which came into existence subsequent to the filing of the plaint, i.e., post dated docume