01.2026 Sadhu Sing u Singh v. M/s Sande Commissio Sandeep Kumar Sanjeev Kumar mission Agents & Anr.

Plaintiff claims to be a registe registered firm, who has filed a suit fo suit for recovery a ery against the defendants-petitione etitioner. Defendants in the writte written statement d ment denied the status of the plaintiff aintiff as a registered firm and claim that the pla he plaintiff was not entitled to maintai aintain the suit. [3] Parties went to trial on the the following issues framed by th by the learned Tri ed Trial Court on 18.12.2017:- “1. Whether the pla plaintiff is entitled to recover principal amount ount of Rs.9,13,643.15/- along with interest, as praye rayed for? OPP RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CR-355-2021 (O (O&M)

5. Whether the su suit of the plaintiff is within PP limitation? OPP Whether the su suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in i in its present form? OPD Whether the plain plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file o file the present suit? OPD Relief. ” [4] Plaintiff while leading evidenc vidence failed to produce documentar mentary evidence to nce to prove its status as a register egistered firm. Later on, the prese present application cation seeking permission to lead add ad additional evidence was filed. Th d. The same was o was opposed by the petitioner-defend defendants, claiming that the same wa me was not mainta aintainable at a belated stage after e after plaintiff failed to exercise du cise due diligence w ence while leading evidence. [5] Learned Trial Court vide impu e impugned order has allowed the sam he same by placing acing reliance upon the ratio of law la law laid down by the Supreme Court Court in ‘K.K. Velu . Velusamy versus N. Palanisamy’, my’, reported as 2011 AIR SC (Civi (Civil)

1000. [6] Learned Senior Counsel appe l appearing on behalf of the petitione titioner- defendants dants has assailed the impugned orde d order. He contends that the learne learned Trial Cour Court completely misread the rat K.K. he ratio of law laid down in K.K Velusamy’ samy’s case (supra). Party cannot be not be allowed to fill up the lacuna cuna by invoking S king Section 151 CPC for leading a ing additional evidence. He submi submits that once t once the plaintiff failed to prove its ed firm, e its status of being a registered firm which was h was specifically denied by the defe e defendants, he cannot be allowed owed to cover up th r up the lacuna by moving the presen present application. In support of h rt of his submission issions, reliance has been placed up ced upon the judgment of the Suprem upreme RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-355-2021 (O (O&M) 3 Court in ‘K ‘K.K. Velusamy versus N. Palan Palanisamy’, reported as 2011 AI 11 AIR SC (Civil) Civil) 1000 as well as the judgments o ents of this Court in ‘M/s Satyam Ste m Steel versus Sm s Smt. Sarla and another’, 2017(1) 17(1) RCR (Civil) 902, ‘Ram Kuma Kumar versus Raj s Raj Kumar and others’, 2013(54) 13(54) RCR (Civil) 308, ‘V.K. Mantr Mantro and sons sons (HUF) and others versus M/s s M/s Select Global Hotel Pvt. Lt t. Ltd. and other others’, 2019(3) PLJ 136, ‘M/s S M/s Shree Sangmeshwar Mahade ahadev Gramo Ud o Udyog Mandal versus Ajmer Sin er Singh and another’, 2014(49) RC 9) RCR (Civil) 512 il) 512, and ‘Surjit Singh and oth d others versus Jagtar Singh an gh and others’, 20 , 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537. [7] Per contra, learned counse counsel for the respondents-plainti plaintiff submits tha its that the documents could not be p t be produced owing to the negligenc gligence on the part part of the counsel. The same have have direct bearing on the issues. Th es. The evidence b nce being in form of the documents ents have been rightly allowed by th d by the learned Tri ed Trial Court. [8] I have heard counsel for the for the parties and have carefully gon lly gone through rec gh records of the case. [9] Plaintiff instituted recovery s very suit claiming to be a partnersh tnership firm. By w By way of additional evidence pla ce plaintiff wants to bring on recor record documentar mentary evidence to prove the registra egistration. Additional evidence allowe allowed by the Tria e Trial Court though has no bearing o ring on the merits of the case, but goe but goes to the root e root of maintainability of the suit. Su K.K. suit. Supreme Court in the case of K.K Velusamy' samy's case (supra) while dealing ealing with the scope of addition ditional evidence a nce and the circumstances in whic which the same can be allowe observed rved as under :- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “15. xxx xxx The courts below have not ap ot applied their minds to the questio estion CR-355-2021 (O (O&M) 4 whether such evidence will be ll be relevant and whether the ends nds of justice require permission to l to let in such evidence. Therefore th re the order calls for interference.

16. We may add a word of c of caution. The power under sectio ection 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of th of the Code is not intended to be use e used routinely, merely for the aski asking. If so used, it will defeat th at the very purpose of various ame amendments to the Code to expedi pedite trials. But where the applicat lication is found to be bona fide an e and where the additional evidence ence, oral or documentary, will assi assist the court to clarify the eviden idence on the issues and will assist sist in rendering justice, and the cou court is satisfied that non-product uction earlier was for valid and su d sufficient reasons, the court ma t may exercise its discretion to recal ecall the witnesses or permit the fres evidence. But if it does so, i so, it should ensure that the proce rocess does not become a protractin acting tactic. The court should first firstly award appropriate costs to th to the other party to compensate fo te for the delay. Secondly the court ourt should take up and complete th te the case within a fixed time sched schedule so that the delay is avoide oided. Thirdly if the application i on is found to be mischievous, o us, or frivolous, or to cover up neg negligence or lacunae, it should b uld be rejected with heavy costs. If t . If the application is allowed and th nd the evidence is permitted and nd ultimately the court finds th s that evidence was not genuine or or relevant and did not warrant th nt the reopening of the case recallin alling the witnesses, it can be made ade a ground for awarding exemp emplary costs apart from orderin dering prosecution if it involves fab fabrication of evidence. If the par had an opportunity to produce duce such evidence earlier but did n id not do so or if the evidence alrea lready led is clear and unambiguou guous, or if it comes to the conclusion usion that the object of the applicatio cation is merely to protract the pro proceedings, the court should reje reject the application. If the eviden idence sought to be produced is a is an electronic record, the court t may also listen to the recordin ording RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document before granting or rejecting th ng the application.” CR-355-2021 (O (O&M) 5 [10] As per the ratio of law refer referred to hereinabove, the Court Court is required to ired to test the case of applicant seek t seeking permission to lead addition ditional evidence on nce on the touchstone of relevance co nce coupled with ends of justice. In th In the present cas nt case the negligence on part of the a f the applicant-plaintiff is evident but but at the same tim ame time the Court cannot be obliviou livious of the fact that the documentar mentary evidence is not only relevant but shall aid ll aid the Court in imparting justice. I stice. In order to ba r to balance the equities, the Trial C rial Court has allowed the applicatio lication subject to to payment of costs of ₹ 2,000/-. [11] Finding no merits in the pres e present revision petition, the same same is ordered to b red to be dismissed. [12] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands disposed of ed off. .2026 14.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma/Po /Pooja Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document