The court reaffirmed that under the Commercial Courts Act, petitioners must be allowed to present vital documents, provided they show reasonable cause for any delay in production.

The petitioners/plaintiffs in C.O.S.No.468 of 2023 filed I.A.No.5 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.468 of 2023 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of C.P.C, as amended to Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before the learned Judge, Commercial Court (Senior Civil Judge Cadre), Coimbatore (In short 'Trial Court') to permit them to produce original passbooks listed as document No.8 in the plaint and further to produce document Nos.2, 3 & 4 mentioned in the plaint, marked as exhibits, to clarify date and time of Email correspondence. The trial Court by impugned order, dated 18.12.2023 dismissed the same. Against which, the present civil revision petition is filed.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the suit property and the respondent/defendant became a tenant. The respondent occupied the schedule property by virtue of lease deed, dated 04.10.2012 on the monthly rent of Rs.3,00,000/- per month and service tax of Rs.15,000/- and the rent to be enhanced 15% every three years. From 04.10.2015, the respondent ought to have paid the enhanced rent of Rs.3,45,000/- along with service tax of Rs.26,600/-. When the same not paid, the petitioners demanded enhanced rent and sent a demand notice, dated 18.12.2015. Followed with, a legal notice, dated 20.04.2018 demanding a sum of Rs.10,76,200/- towards enhanced rent. The respondent's stand was that there was no written lease deed and it was only an old agreement and the respondent also sent Email in this regard. Further, the lease deed was in possession of the respondent. He further submitted that in the plaint, eight documents listed of which document No.2 is Email, dated 29.09.2017. The photostat copies of the passbook shown as document No.8 and marked as exhibit. His evidence recorded on 30.08.2023 and on the same day he was cross examined. During cross examination, Email questioned as regards date and time of the Email correspondence and questioned production of photostat copies of the bank passbooks.

3.It is further submitted that the petitioner filed four applications in I.A.Nos.4 to 7 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.468 of 2023. I.A.No.6 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.468 of 2023 was allowed and thereby, GST authority was directed to produce written lease agreement entered between the petitioners and the respondent. The said document are yet to be exhibited. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the background of the case. Initially, the suit was filed before the Civil Court and later it has been transferred to the Commercial Court at the stage of cross examination. In such circumstances, expecting the petitioners to fulfill the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 would not be proper. Though the petitioners in their affidavit had given reason for producing the documents, the trial Court finding is that no reason given, which is not proper. The trial Court ought to have considered that all litigants should be given an opportunity to put forth their case with supporting evidence including documents.

4.He further submitted that out of six bank passbooks (document No.8), three bank passbooks already in the plaint and now traced out three passbooks recently which ought to be marked. The trial Court finding that the as per Order XI Rule 6, the document could not be produced without establishing reasonable cause, is against the pleadings since the petitioners explained that the original passbooks traced out recently, hence, necessitated to be marked now. In the interest of justice, the petitioners ought to be permitted to produce the clear copy of Email with date and time and the original passbooks and mark them as exhibits which the trial Court failed to consider.

5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “ Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B reported in (2021) 13 SCC 71” wherein it had held that 'Order XI Rule 1 of C.P.C as applicable to the commercial su