THE GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M/S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI + CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1860/2025 % 07.05.2026 # Between:

1. THE GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,, RANDB CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. M/S R S V CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD, Represented by its Project Manager, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : GP For Arbitration ^ Counsel for Respondent(S): N.Ashwani Kumar < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred:

1. (2021) 13 SCC 71

2. (2020) 15 SCC 585 RNT,J&BM,J CRP.No.1860 of 2025

3. (2004) 2 SCC 267

4. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 583

5. (1994) 2 SCC 558

6. (2001) 8 SCC 97

7. 2024 SCC Online AP 4102

8. 2020 (10) SCC 706

9. 2025 SCC OnLine AP 51 RNT,J&BM,J CRP.No.1860 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.1860 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli) This Civil Revision Petition was filed against the Order dated

18.06.2025, passed in I.A.No.114 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.16 of 2020 on the file of Special Court For Trial And Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, whereby the application filed under Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.114 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.16 of 2020, seeking leave of the Court to receive the documents mentioned in the application in the interest of justice and equity. Along with the said application, as many as 25 documents were filed, which are be received as documents in the above- said suit.

3. Resisting the said application, the respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit contending that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 do not permit the parties to introduce additional documents after the fixation of schedule and Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC is not the correct provision of law, and in fact, the CPC has no application insofar as receiving of RNT,J&BM,J CRP.No.1860 of 2025 documents at a belated stage. It was also contended that the description of the documents as well as the relevancy was also not properly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application. As per the amended CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes, filing of documents at appropriate stage is mandatory and the same cannot be permitted at a later point of time, no judicial discretion is vested in the courts for doing so. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff that the cause shown in the affidavit that documents were misplaced in the office of the petitioners, thereby, they could not file those documents which are essential documents to support the case of the petitioners and subsequently, after the documents were traced out, they were advised to file a petition and there is no willful default or negligence on their part in filing the said documents was refuted by the respondent asserting that there is no reason, much less sufficient cause, has been shown to receive the documents and the petitioners/defendants have slept over for more than five years, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as sought in the said I.A.

4. Considering the submissions of the counsel on either side, learned Special Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that there is an inordinate delay of about five years in filing the application to bring the proposed documents on record and there is no explanation except stating that the same were misplaced in the office. The trial court further observed RNT,J&BM,J CRP.No.1860 of 2025 that liberal interpretation cannot be done in respect of the provision of Commercial Courts Act, particularly, when the delay is about more than five years.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants filed the present revision petition.

6. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing petitioners/defendants submitted that the documents were misplaced in the office of the petitioners and that the present application is filed immediately after they were traced out. In fact, in the written statement filed in the above commercial suit (which was subsequently transferred and numbered as C.S.No.2 of 2019 before the Commercial Court at Vijayawada), at Para 13, the right to file additional written statement in the event of new facts coming to light, was reserved by the defendants. It was further contended that all the documents are public documents and defendants being the State, there is no possibility of manipulation or fabrication of documents, as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. The documents are crucial for the purpose of adjudication of the matter and also in the interest of public exchequer as the claim is against the State. It was further RNT,J&BM,J CRP.No.1860 of 2025 submitted that an additional affidavit explaining the relevancy of the documents has been filed. A perusal of the said affidavit would show that said documents are basically, the agreement with respondent/plaintiff and communication between the parties during the execution of work under the said agreement. As such, both the plaintiff and defendants are parties to the said documents and they are not new documents. The said documents could not be filed in view of the misplacement of the same in the office of the petitioners/defendants, as such, receiving of the same would not cause any prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly prayed for leave of the Court to receive the said documents.

8. The respondent/plaintiff, filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above documents inter alia contending the documents are supposed to be filed by petitioners/defendants at the time of filing of written statement, or counter claim if any, or at the stage of case management hearings in respect of transferred cases, as per the provisions of Section 15(4) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the said provision does not permit the petitioners/defendants to introduce additional documents after fixation of the schedule, particularly, with such inordinate delay from the date of filing of the written statement. It was further contended that the petitioners/ defendants did not file any RNT,J&BM,J CRP.No.1860 of 2025 supportive documents for substantiating the relevancy or importance of the additional documents, and the reasons assigned were vague. It was further argued that such vague and indistinct statements ought not to have been made by the officers holding higher positions, which shows negligence on their part. The further contention of the respondent is that the defendants had invoked incorrect provision of law by filing the application under Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC, instead of invoking Order XI Rules 1(7) and (10) of the CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes, since Order XI Rule 7 relates to striking of interrogatories.

9. It was further case of the respondent/plaintiff that the very object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to ensure expeditious adjudication of disputes in strict adherence to the special procedure prescribed therein, and that it is an imperative on the part of the courts to achieve the object of swift and effective disposal of commercial disputes by the Special Courts and placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B.,1 and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP2 and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition.