Timely disclosure of documents is essential in civil proceedings; failure to do so without reasonable cause can result in exclusion of evidence.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in Com.O.S.No.1051/2021 on the file of X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (commercial court), is directed against the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner in I.A.Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 to reopen the case, to recall PW-2 and for production of documents, were allowed in part by the commercial court as hereunder:-

ORDER ON IA-12, 13, 14 AND 15 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.

The plaintiff has IA-12 under section 151 of CPC, IA-13- under order 18 rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC, IA-14 under order 16 rule 1 read with 151 of CPC and IA- 15- under order 11 rule (5) read with section 151 of CPC as amended by the commercial courts act 2015 in order to recall and reopen Pw2 for further evidence and permission to produce the document and to take the witness list and such other reliefs by condoning the delay.

2. Along with the applications, the plaintiff has filed affidavits sworn to by its authorized person by name Ravindra. In the said affidavits, it is stated by him that the case is set down for arguments on merits. In his cross examination, it is suggested by the defendant that it has paid the amount and in that regard he (PW.1) has stated that the amount paid by the defendant are not pertaining to pending invoices. Therefore, the plaintiff has to produce said documents in order to establish its case. It is further say of the plaintiff that this court has framed an additional issue as to the maintainability on 20/9/22. In this regard the plaintiff has already led the evidence and produced a document with the application. But this court has rejected the said document which is nothing but the affidavit of the witness proposed to be examined. In the cross examination, it is further suggested that the signature found in Ex. P.15 is not the signature of the witness referred in the list. Therefore, in order to establish that Mr. Nileesh Agarwal still working in this company as Director, it is just and necessary to reopen PW.2 by recalling the order dated 5/1/23. It is further contended by the plaintiff that if the application is rejected, it will be put to greater hardship and injury and on the other hand it will not prejudice the defendant. Hence the the application has to be allowed.

3. On the other hand, the defendant has filed a detailed objections to IA-14 and 15 and adaption memo to IA-12 and 13. It has contended that the applications are filed at a belated stage and hence they are not maintainable. This is the second time application for production of documents. This is the clear violation of order XV-A of commercial courts act. The plaintiff cannot take the opportunity given under law as granted to produce the documents in installments according to his convenience and whims and fancies. The plaintiff will keep on creating the documents to its convenience to cure its defects and substantiate its false claim. It is trying to introduce and incorporate new facts which were not disclosed in the suit plaint and by producing irrelevant documents. If the plaintiff want to introduce the new case, it must have done at the earliest point of time so that the defendant would have got an opportunity to response to it. The plaintiff has failed to assign any sufficient cause or reasonable cause as to non disclosure of the documents at the time of filing the suit as envisaged under order 11 rule 1(5) of CPC as amended by the commercial courts act. The reasons stated in the application does not prove the sufficient cause. The application is field to cause wrongly loss and harass the defendant.

4. The applications are barred under order XI rule 1(5) of CPC as amended by the commercial courts act. The application of the plaintiff is also contrary to para no.4 and 5 of stat