THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2677 AND 2572 OF 2025 Between:

M/s. Sri Vishnu Constructions Petitioner VERSUS The State of Telangana and Others Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 14.11.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Her Ladyship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No _________________________________

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2677 AND 2572 OF 2025 Mr.Rusheek Reddy K.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr.Herur Rajesh Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondent No.1.

COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Civil Revision Petitions arise out of two orders dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District (‘Commercial Court’) in IA.No.224 of 2025 in COS.No.39 of 2021 and I.A.No.263 of 2025 in COS.No.46 of 2021.

2. COS.No.39 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration and for the recovery of a sum of Rs.5,17,65,337/- along with interest against the respondents/defendants. COS.No.46 of 2021 was also filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of declaration and for the recovery of a sum of Rs.9,07,27,864/- along with interest against the respondents/defendants.

3. I.A.No.224 of 2025 and I.A.No.263 of 2025 were filed by the respondents/defendants in the two Suits i.e., COS.No.39 of 2021 and COS.No.46 of 2021, respectively, seeking leave of the Court to file the documents listed in the IAs and for the Court to receive the same by condoning the delay. The respondents/defendants in I.A.No.263 of 2025, contended that the said documents could not be filed along with their Written Statement as the said documents had been misplaced and were recently traced during the course of a search. It was submitted by the respondents/defendants in both the I.As. that the said documents could not be marked by the respondents/defendants as they were not available on record with the Court bundle.

4. By the impugned orders, the Commercial Court allowed I.A.No.224 of 2025 and partly allowed I.A.No.263 of 2025 by holding that the documents mentioned in the list therein had been mentioned in the pleadings in the Written Statements filed by the respondents/defendants and the petitioner/plaintiff had not denied the relevance of the same. The Commercial Court granted leave to the respondents/defendants to bring the documents listed in both the I.As, on record, except the letter dated

31.05.2018 mentioned at Sl.No.8 of I.A.No.263 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the Commercial Court failed to consider the non-compliance of the respondents/defendants with the statutory requirement under Order XI Rule 1(10) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), as amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’) as the respondents/defendants failed to give any ‘reasonable cause’ for the delay in filing of the documents. Counsel submits that the Commercial Court could not have granted leave to the defendants to file the documents under the provisions of the CPC, as amended by the 2015 Act, or relaxed the applicability of the said provisions on the ground of the documents having been mentioned in the Written Statements.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the impugned orders should be sustained since all the documents which were sought to be filed in the IAs had been referred to in the Written Statements and there was no denial of the documents by the petitioner/plaintiff. Counsel submi