In commercial suits, allowing late-filed documents without satisfactory justification undermines the procedural rigor intended by the Commercial Courts Act.

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions are at the instance of the plaintiff in C.O.S. No.738 of 2022, aggrieved by the common order dated 13.06.2025 in I.A. Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2025.

2. I have heard Ms.Deepika Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Mr.T.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Deepika Murali would contend that the suit was filed in the year 2021 and after two years, in 2023, the plaintiff’s evidence was over and the suit was posted for defendant’s evidence. She would further stated that even as early as in August 2024, D.W.1 has examined and cross examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. After examination of D.W.1 in October 2024, and again in November 2024, an Application was filed by the defendants to receive additional documents. Both these Interlocutory Applications to receive additional documents in I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2024 were withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Applications. Subsequently, D.W.1 was further cross examined in February and March, 2025 and yet another Application in I.A. No.5 of 2025, was taken out by the respondents seeking to produce additional documents, pursuant to the liberty granted in I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2024. Two more Applications were filed to reopen and recall in I.A. Nos.6 & 7 of 2025. The said Applications were opposed. However, the Commercial Court has proceeded to allow all the Applications as against which, these revisions have been preferred. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that none of the objections that were raised by the revision petitioner have been considered by the Commercial Court and the Commercial Court also failed to see that the documents were sought to be marked without even a certificate under Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam , 2023 (BSA). She would therefore pray for the common order passed in the three Interlocutory Applications could be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions in favour of his contentions:

(i) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs. K.S.Infraspace LLP and Another , reported in (2020) 15 SCC 585 ;

(ii) Entertainment Network (India) Ltd Vs. HT Media Limited, reported in (2022) SCC ;

(iii) Bela Creation Private Limited Vs. Anuj Textiles , reported in (2022) SCC Online Del 1366;

(iv) Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs. Saregama India Limited , reported in (2019) SCC Online Del 10215;

(v) Eicore Technologies Private Limited and others Vs. Eexpedise Technologies Private Limited and others , reported in (2024) SCC Online Del 7536;

(vi) Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through Lrs Vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 410 ;

(vii) K.K.Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy , reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 ;

(viii) Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai Vs. Gupta Building Material Store , reported in (2013) 14 SCC 1 ;

(ix) Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others , reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 ; and

(x) Gayathri Vs. M.Girish , reported in (2016) 14 SCC 142 .

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would state that only in view of the liberty granted while disposing of the Interlocutory Applications in I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2024, by orders dated 21.01.2025 and 29.01.2025, the present Applications have been taken out and therefore, the revision petitioner cannot object to receipt of the said document