Sr.No.117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :29.08.2025 Pronounced on:09.09.2025 M/s Syndicate Carrier and another ….Petitioners Versus M/s Jamnagar Filling Station and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present:- Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate and Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate and Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

*****

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Commercial Court, Gurugram dismissing the review application filed by the petitioners/defendants upholding order dated 20.12.2024, whereby application filed by petitioner under Order XI Rule 1(10) read with Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents stands dismissed.

2. Petitioners/defendantsare facing suit for recovery of Rs.50,56,859.68/- filed at the behest of the plaintiff. Defendants filed the written statement on 04.10.2022. Defendants in the preliminary objections claimed that the defendantsare maintaining proper books of accounts being audited by qualified Chartered Accountant. As per the books of accounts, the total outstanding amount payable to the respondent No.1/plaintiff as on 31.03.2020 was Rs.39 lakhs. The same was paid by the defendants within the period commencing from 14.07.2020 till 20.01.2021. Plaintiff issued receipt qua amount of Rs.38,50,000/- but deliberately withheld the receipt qua remaining Rs.50,000/-.

3. As per law, defendants were required to furnish list of documents referred to and relied upon by them in the written statement and the documents in their power, possession, control or custody relating to any matter in question in the proceedings. In the list of documents furnished ledger only for the year 2018-2019 has been disclosed. It is at the later stage on 19.10.2024, i.e. during cross-examination that the petitioner filed present application under Order XI Rule 1(10) read with Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to place on record audited financial statement for the year ending on 31.03.2022. The application was contested by plaintiff.

4. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024 dismissed the application filed by petitioners/defendants holding that the petitioners failed to show any reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents at the time of filing of the written statement.

5. Defendant filed application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of order dated 20.12.2024 before the same Court. The same stands rejected vide order dated 16.04.2025. In the present revision petition, the Petitioners have assailed both the orders, i.e. order dated 20.12.2024 and the order dated 16.04.2025 dismissing the application seeking review of order dated 20.12.2024.

6. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the findings recorded by the Trial Court submitting that since the audit for the financial statements for the year ending on 31.03.2022 was concluded only on 31.12.2023, hence the same could only be brought to the notice of the Court and be disclosed thereafter. He submits that since the documents were not in existence at the time of filing of the written statement on 04.10.2022, the same could not have been disclosed. The Court, however, failed to appreciate the same and erred in rejecting the application filed by petitioners. He relies upon the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan vs Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71, wherein the Supreme Court held that rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non-disclosure along with pleadings shall not arise where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the pleadings.

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that even if the cause pleaded by petitio