M India Private Limited mited v. MGF Developments Limi re Limited & Ors
Case Details
CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 IN THE HIGH C GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYAN RYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR NO. 2227 OF 2025 25 RESERVED ON: 15.05.2025 25 25 PRONOUNCED ON: 26.05.2025 M3M India Private L te Limited MGF Developments nts Limited & Ors. Versus CORAM: HON’BL TA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA er …. Petitioner nts … Respondents Argued By:- Mr. Ash Ms. Rup Ashish Chopra, Senior Advocate wit Rupa Pathania, Advocate for the pe with e petitioner. Mr. Ama Respond Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate f pondents No.1 and 2. ate for Mr. Sum Mrs. Ash Mr. Gya Respond Sumeet Jain, Advocate, . Ashima Mor, Advocate and Gyan Parkash Saini, Advocate for pondent No.3. Mr. Ami Ms. Priy Mr. Hars Respond Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Priyanka Kansal, Advocate and Harshit Joon, Advocate for pondent No.4. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Petition itioner herein is the plaintiff in civil s M ivil suit No. 4 of 2023 titled ‘M3M India Private Limited mited Vs. MGF Developments Limi re Limited & Ors.’, pending before learned Additional nal District Judge-cum-Presiding O ial ng Officer, Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram e am exercising jurisdiction under Co [in r Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [in short – ‘commercial rcial court’]. The petitioner is a ed is aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexu nexure P-1), whereby Commercia he ercial Court has dismissed the application filed by t by the said petitioner under Order X ing der XI Rule 1 (5) CPC for producing certain additional do l documents. JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 1 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 2.1 Defenda endants No.1 and 2 (respondents N: of ts N: 1 & 2 herein) were owner of the suit land. Colla ollaboration agreement dated 23. as 23.11.2016 (Annexure P-2) was executed between th en the plaintiff and defendants No. nd; No.1 & 2 regarding the said land; and an amount of of ₹88 crores was paid by the pla ts, plaintiff to the said defendants, which as per plaint laintiff’s case was a refundable s of le security. Irrevocable power of attorney was execute cuted by defendant No.1 & 2 in pla ay plaintiff’s favour on the same day i.e. 23.11.2016. Th The plaintiff was represented b On ed by one Mr. Ravi Khera. On 24.11.2016, a supp upplementary agreement is purpo d urported to have been executed between the parties ties, whereby refundable security d ion ity deposit under the collaboration agreement was ma made non-refundable. Plaintiff ad tiff claims that Ravi Khera had tendered his resig esignation on 25.05.2017. It at is further the allegation that is cancellation agreem eement dated 18.12.2017 was lat he later on executed between the plaintiff through Ra Ravi Khera and defendants No he No.1 & 2, thus, cancelling the collaboration agreem reement. 2.2 Later on r on, out of total 61 kanals 18 marla nts arlas of the suit land, defendants No.1 & 2 sold 60 kan kanals 7 marlas to defendant No.3 on No.3 (respondents N: 3 herein) on 09.09.2021, who wa was granted license to develop t tor op the plotted colony by Director Town and Country Pl ry Planning. 2.3 Cancella cellation agreement dated 18.12.20 to 2.2017 is alleged by the plaintiff to be a forged docum cument, having been prepared by in by the defendants No.1 & 2 in collusion with its ers s erstwhile employee Mr. Ravi Khera in hera, who had already resigned in May 2017. On a com complaint moved by the plaintiff o ed iff on 30.12.2021, FIR No. 3 dated 03.01.2022 under Se r Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 420, 46 ed 467, 468, 471 IPC was registered against defendants N nts No.1 and 3, its Directors and M of d Mr. Ravi Khera. CRM-M 4263 of 2022 was filed by de y defendant No.1 to quash the FIR b IR before this High Court. 2.4 Plaintiff ntiff then filed civil suit No. 2770 o re 70 of 2022 on 07.06.2022 before the Court of learned ned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurugram ion ram seeking decree of declaration of his rights under der the collaboration agreement. led nt. Defendants No.1 and 3 filed separate application tions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ot PC contending that suit was not maintainable being a ing a commercial dispute and so, sa ght o, same should have been brought before Commercial C cial Court. The objection of maintai he intainability was also raised in the JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 2 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 written statement fi
Legal Reasoning
nt filed by defendants No.1 and 2 nt d 2 in October, 2022. Defendant No.3 pleaded itself t elf to be a bonafide purchaser. 2.5 The plai plaint of aforesaid suit was returned on rned by the learned Civil Judge on 09.01.2023 and the thereafter, plaintiff brought the 23 the present suit on 21.01.2023 seeking decree of d of declaration regarding validity of nt, y of the collaboration agreement, contending that it it was still subsisting and seekin ds eking cancellation of sale deeds executed by defenda endants No.1 and 2 in favour of def as f defendant No.3. Declaration was also sought that sup supplementary agreement and the re the cancellation agreement were void. Besides, decree cree of permanent injunction was nts as sought against the defendants from creating third p ird party rights. 2.6 During p ing pendency of the suit, this High C
Decision
63 gh Court disposed of CRM-M 4263 of 2022 having been been rendered infructuous in the li ort he light of the cancellation report filed in FIR No.3 of 2 of 2022, vide order dated 19.07.202 .2023. 2.7 Applicat lication under Order 39 Rules 1 & tiff 1 & 2 CPC moved by the plaintiff was dismissed on 06 n 06.09.2023. Application under Or by r Order VII Rule 11 CPC moved by the defendants was was also dismissed on 06.09.2023. A on 23. Another application moved on 18.03.2023 by the pl e plaintiff for amendment of the pl me e plaint was allowed on the same date of 06.09.2023 23 and the suit initially filed for d tial or declaration with consequential relief of permanent ent injunction was allowed to be c ific be converted into suit for specific performance of the c the collaboration agreement. 2.8 On 01.1 01.12.2023, defendant No.3 sold 1 uit ld 1 kanal 11 marlas of the suit land in favour of de f defendant No.4 (respondents N: 4 he N: 4 herein). On 14.03.2024, the Judicial Magistrate Is te Ist Class, Gurugram declined to ort to accept the cancellation report filed in respect of FIR f FIR N: 3 of 2022. 2.9 On 17th 17th September, 2024, this Court in ed rt in FAO-COM-16 of 2023 directed the Commercial Cou Court Gurugram to fix time sched aid chedule and decide the aforesaid civil suit No. 4 of 202 2023 within nine months from next next date. 2.10 After th r the above order of this High Cou by Court, application was moved by the plaintiff under der Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to imp es implead defendant No.4 besides another application tion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC f nt. PC for amendment of the plaint. JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 3 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 These applications w ns were allowed on 09.12.2024. Am he . Amended plaint was filed by the plaintiff on 19.12.2 .12.2024; and defendants No.1 en .1 to 4 filed separate written statements in Decem cember, 2024/ January 2025. 2.11 On 13.0 13.01.2025, plaintiff moved applica (5) plication under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC for producing ad g additional document, which was an as allowed on 01.03.2025 and an additional document ent was taken on record. 2.12 Yet ano another application under Order XI by er XI Rule 1(5) CPC was moved by the plaintiff on 18.01 8.01.2025 so as to produce followin wing documents:- I. II. III. IV. 2.13 Balance sheet heets/ annual returns and relevan he vant financial statements of the defendants (20 (2016-2020) Copy of applica plication dated 19.02.2024 and order d er dated 14.3.2024 passed thereon Full and final s nal settlement documents executed ing ed by Mr. Ravi Khera upon leaving nt. employment. Copy of the com complaint dated 28.03.2022 filed bef nd before the Department of Town and Country Planni anning Haryana along with copy of co led of complaint dated 10.03.2023 filed before the Hary Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Author thority. By way way of the impugned order date aid dated 05.03.2025, the aforesaid application under Or r Order XI Rule 1 (5) CPC dated 18. he 18.01.2025 was dismissed by the Commercial Court, w rt, which has been assailed by the his the plaintiff-petitioner before this Court. 3.1 Assailin ailing the impugned order, it is c ior is contended by learned Senior Advocate for the pe e petitioner-plaintiff that productio nal ction of the proposed additional documents is releva levant and necessary for the prope as roper adjudication of the case, as despite due diligenc gence, the same could not be pla are placed on file earlier. These are relevant for proper per adjudication of the case espec nd specially in the light of the stand taken by the defend endants in their written statements be ents and that no prejudice will be caused to the defe defendants by allowing the applic get pplication because they will get opportunity to contr ontrovert the same. Besides, under ies nder Order XI Rule 12 CPC, parties are duty bound to to disclose all the documents, wh till , which come to their notice, till uit. disposal of the suit. JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 4 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 3.2 It s further the contention of is fu at learned Senior Advocate that lea application under Or r Order XI Rule 1 (5) CPC was move en oved at the initial stage, as even the issues have not not been settled so far and ther urt therefore, the Commercial Court should have granted nted the leave to file the additiona he ional documents, considering the same to be in the in e interest of justice and that plaint ble laintiff had established reasonable cause for non-disclo sclosure thereof along with the plai ion plaint. It is further the contention of learned Senior Ad r Advocate that procedural rules ar nt es are handmaid of justice, meant to adjudicate the riv rival claims of the parties and not t not to curtail them. 3.3 In suppo upport of his contention, learned Se to d Senior Advocate has referred to following authorities ities:- Sudhir Kum Kumar @ S. Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar mar GB 2021 (13) SCC 71 Transport C ort Corporation of India Limited Vs. 24 d Vs. Reserve Bank of India 2024 SCC Online line Del 5533(Delhi High Court) Noveteur El ur Electrical and Digital Systems Pv ies s Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V. Guard Industries Ltd. SCC On C Online Del 552 and Saffron Dev Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Premchan & chand Resorts and Apartments & Ors. 2025 S 25 SCC Online Bom 476(Bombay Hig y High Court) 4.1 Strongly ngly refuting the aforesaid cont by contentions, it is contended by learned Senior Advo Advocate for respondent No.4 an ed and ably supported by learned counsel for the othe other respondents that plaintiff-pet he petitioner was well aware of the stand taken by the d he defendants since beginning, inasm led inasmuch as in the earlier suit filed before the Civil Cou Court in 2022, defendants had disc ing disclosed their defence regarding the cancellation of th of the agreement in question. Not o ed ot only this, plaintiff got amended the plaint in the pre present suit before the Commercia nd rcial Court from time to time and that the last amende ended plaint was filed on 19.12.202 ge, .2024. Neither at the initial stage, when the plaintiff h iff had the first opportunity to file of file the documents at the time of presentation of the the plaint in 2023, nor at the later of later stage at the time of filing of amended plaints, th s, the plaintiff produced the propos ow posed documents which are now sought to be produce duced. 4.2 Learned rned Senior Advocate for the respon he spondents has also referred to the conduct of the peti titioner - plaintiff in order to em ge, o emphasise that at every stage, JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 5 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 plaintiff has tried to d to delay the proceedings despite 24 spite the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by a Division ision bench of this Court in FAO- he -COM 16 of 2023, whereby the Commercial Court h rt had been directed to fix time uit me schedule and decide the suit within a period of 0 of 09 months. It is contended tha ion that in case the present revision petition is accepted ted and consequently, the applicat (5) lication under Order XI Rule 1 (5) CPC is allowed, it wi it will defeat the very objective of t to of the provisions, as applicable to the Commercial disp disputes. 4.3 To supp support their contentions, learne to rned counsels have referred to following authorities ities:- Sudhir Kum Kumar @ S. Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar mar GB, 2021 (13) SCC 71 Nitin Gupta upta Vs. Texmaco Infrastructure an CC re and Holding Limited, 2019 SCC Online Del 8 Del 8367 Great Gatsb Gatsby Club of India Vs. Mahesh Pre ine Prefab Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online Del 2099 Eicore Tech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Eex , . Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC O CC Online Del 7536 Bank of Ba f Baroda Vs. Gujarat Cables and E , nd Enamelled Products Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC O CC Online Bom 4740 Shri Rishi Ra hi Raj Vs. Saregama India Ltd., 2021 021(285) DLT 689 Entertainme inment Network (India) Ltd. Vs. H CC Vs. HT Media Limited, 2022 SCC Online Del 2 Del 2636 Khanna Ray a Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swa 23 . Swastik Associates & Ors., 2023 SCC Online line Bom 1372 M/s Lamb mbha Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/ of s. M/s Kristan Auto, CR No. 6805 of 2023, decid ecided on 21.04.2025. Saregama I ma India Ltd. Vs. Zee Entertainmen CC nment Enterprises Ltd., 2023 SCC Online Del 2 Del 2437. 5. This Cou Court has considered the submissio ve issions of both the sides and have appraised the record cord carefully. 6. Order X er XI of the Code of Civil Procedu nd cedure deals with ‘Discovery and Inspection’. Howeve ever, in its application to the comm XI ommercial disputes, this order XI JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 6 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 has been substituted uted by way of Section 16 of Act of 2 XI t of 2016. The substituted Order XI deals with ‘Disclosur losure, Discovery and Inspection of d the of documents in suits before the commercial division o sion of a High Court or a Commercia he ercial Court’. The objective of the newly substituted p ed provision pertaining to comme te mercial disputes is to promote transparency, efficie ficiency and early disclosure of rel ion f relevant documents in litigation process. It seeks to s to ensure that the parties disclos re sclose all the documents that are relevant to the matt atter including both favourable an at le and unfavourable documents at the initial stage of t of the proceedings itself. Order XI es. r XI Rule 1 contains 12 sub rules. Sub rules (1) to (6) a (6) are applicable to the plaintiff; wh are f; whereas sub-rules (7) to (11) are applicable to the def defendant/ counter claimant. Sub th Sub-rule (12) is applicable to both the parties. 7. The com comparative table of the aforesaid to said Order XI Rule 1, in relation to the plaintiff and defe defendant, is as under:- Order XI Rule 1 CPC discovery of docume Sub Rule (1) CPC (as applicable to Commercial D uments ial Disputes) - Disclosure and in list of all all file a Plaintiff shall and photocopies of all documents and , power, its documents, , control or custody, possession, co to the suit, along with pertaining to th including:— the plaint, inclu ocuments referred to (a) docu relied on by the plaintiff and relie e plaint; in the pla documents relating to (b) docu atter in question in the any matt eedings, in the power, proceedi or ession, possessio dy of the plaintiff, as on custody o ate of filing the plaint, the date pective of whether the irrespect in support of or is is same rse the plaintiff’s to adverse (c) nothing in this Rule case; (c) apply to documents shall ap uced by plaintiffs and produced ant only –– relevant (i) (i) control cross- the for Sub Rule (7) in The de docum docum posses pertain the wr counte e defendant shall file a list of all cuments and photocopies of all cuments, power, ssession, control or custody, rtaining to the suit, along with e written statement or with its unterclaim if any, including— its in (a) the documents referred to and the relied on by the written defendant statement; (b) the documents relating to any matter in question in the proceeding the power, in possession, control or custody of the defendant, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the defendant’s defence; (c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced and the by relevant only–– defendants JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 7 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 (8) (9) ex the examination of defendant’s witnesses, de or or (ii (ii) in answer to any ca case set up by the defendant subsequent de to filing of the to the pl plaint, or (iii) handed over to a (ii w to witness merely refresh his memory. re documents filed with The list of doc shall specify whether the plaint shal in the power, ents the document , control or custody of possession, con ff are originals, office the plaintiff ar hotocopies and the list copies or photo et out in brief, details shall also set o to each document, of parties to xecution, issuance or mode of execu d line of custody of receipt and li ent. each document shall the the contain a t The plaint on oath from the declaration on t all documents in the plaintiff that al ssession, control or power, posses plaintiff, of of custody facts and to to pertaining ces of the proceedings circumstances o by him have been initiated by and copies thereof disclosed and ith the plaint, and that annexed with t ff does not have any the plaintiff do ments in its power, other docume , control or custody. possession, con nation.––A declaration Explanatio der this sub-rule shall on oath under ed in the Statement of be contained in t out in the Appendix. Truth as set out f urgent filings, the In case of u y seek leave to rely on plaintiff may se documents, as part of additional docu declaration on oath the above de t to grant of such leave and subject to g (2) (3) (4) of for the cross- the (i) examination plaintiff’s witnesses, (ii) in answer to any case set up by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or (iii) handed over to a to witness merely refresh his memory. statement statement e list of documents filed with The lis e written or the unterclaim shall specify whether counte in the power, e documents, the d ssession, control or custody of posses e defendant, are originals, office the de pies or photocopies and the list copies all also set out in brief, details of shall al rties to each document being parties oduced by the defendant, mode produc of exe execution, issuance or receipt line of custody of each l d and cument. docum or e written The contain a shall unterclaim counte claration on oath made by the declara ponent that all documents in depon e power, possession, control or the po stody of the defendant, save custod d except for those set out in and ex rule (7) (c) (iii) pertaining to sub-ru acts and circumstances of the the fac the procee oceedings intiff or in the counterclaim, plaintif ve been disclosed and copies have b ereof annexed with the written thereo tement or counterclaim and statem at the defendant does not have that th its power, possession, control or in its p stody, any other documents. custod initiated by JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 8 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 the plaintiff shall file by Court, the in tional documents such addition in thirty days of filing Court, within t ong with a declaration the suit, along hat the plaintiff has on oath that all documents in its produced all ssession, control or power, posses ertaining to the facts custody, perta the circums of umstances and s the initiated by i proceedings nd that the plaintiff plaintiff and any other have does not h power, its , documents, , control or custody. possession, con ff shall not be allowed The plaintiff sh n documents, which to rely on d he plaintiff’s power, were in the , control or custody possession, co disclosed along with and not discl within the extended plaint or with out above, save and period set out eave of Court and such except by leave be granted only upon leave shall be establishing aintiff plainti the non- for cause c reasonable long with the plaint. disclosure along in (5) (6) (11) The The plaint shal shall set out details of , which the plaintiff documents, w o be in the power, believes to b , control or custody of possession, con dant and which the the defendant shes to rely upon and plaintiff wishes for production thereof seek leave for p defendant. by the said defe counte of do posses the pla wishes have n plaint, to prod close documents, which have come to ll disposal of the suit. (12) Duty to disclose continue till dis (10) Save a (c) (iii allowe which power custod with t counte leave o granted only upon g be defend cause with t counte ve and except for sub-rule (7) (iii), defendant shall not be owed to rely on documents, ich were in the defendant’s wer, possession, control or stody and not disclosed along th the written statement or unterclaim, save and except by ve of Court and such leave shall the fendant establishing reasonable use for non-disclosure along th the written statement or unterclaim. e written or unterclaim shall set out details documents the power, in ssession, control or custody of e plaintiff, which the defendant shes to rely upon and which ve not been disclosed with the int, and call upon the plaintiff produce the same. e to the notice of a party, shall statement 8. When t en the aforesaid provisions are exa e- examined in their entirety, it be- comes evident that hat their primary objective is to e all to ensure that parties disclose all relevant documents ents—favourable or unfavourable— d- —at the outset of the proceed- JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 9 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 ings. This early disc disclosure is intended to prevent ize ent "trial by ambush," minimize surprises during tri trial, and facilitate effective cas case management through the he narrowing of issues ues in dispute. The provisions imp th impose strict obligations on both parties to act in g in good faith and disclose all doc documents within their power, er, possession, control, rol, or custody that are pertinent to t to the matter. 9. Specific cifically, the plaintiff is required, at it, , at the very inception of the suit, to submit a comp mprehensive list of such docum cuments along with the plaint, nt, accompanied by an an affidavit of disclosure in the pr res e prescribed format. This ensures full and frank disclos sclosure even before the Court beg he begins hearing the matter or the defendant enters ap s appearance. While the defendant of ant is subject to the same duty of disclosure, it arises ses at a later stage—namely, when nt. hen filing the written statement. This procedural diffe difference lies solely in timing - the p ion the plaintiff’s disclosure obligation arises at the comm mmencement of the suit, wherea ereas the defendant’s obligation ion coincides with their w eir written response. 10. Althoug ough parties may seek to rely on ad ter n additional documents at a later stage, sub-rule (5) fo 5) for plaintiffs and sub-rule (10) fo to 0) for defendants require them to obtain the Court’s le t’s leave. Such leave will be granted n- nted only upon showing a reason- able cause for the ea e earlier non-disclosure. 11. Furtherm thermore, under sub-rule (12) of Or are f Order XI Rule 1, both parties are under a continuing d ing duty to disclose any relevant do eir t documents that come into their possession or contro ntrol during the pendency of the pro e proceedings. 12. Failure t ure to comply with the disclosure o us re obligations may lead to serious consequences, inclu luding being barred from relyin nts elying on undisclosed documents without the Court’s rt’s permission, imposition of costs rse costs, and the drawing of adverse inferences. 13. While i ile interpreting sub-rule (4) and ( PC, nd (5) of Order XI Rule 1 CPC, Hon’ble Supreme Co e Court in Sudhir Kumar Vs. Vinay Ku ich ay Kumar’s case (supra), on which incidentally counsel sel for both the parties have relied, lied, held as under:- JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 10 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 “9.4 Howeve ever, the additional documents can on can be permitted to be bought on record with the the leave of the court as provided in ule d in Order XI Rule 1 (4). Order XI Rule 1 (4) provides t es that in case of urgent filings, the p on he plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional doc documents as part of the above de ed e declaration on oath [as provided under Order 1 er 11 Rule 1 (3)] and subject to gra he grant of such leave by Court, the plaintiff shall fi all file such additional documents in C ing in Court, within thirty days of filing the suit, along long with a declaration on oath tha all that the plaintiff has produced all documents in in its power, possession, control or cts l or custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstan stances of the proceedings initiated he iated by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does n es not have any other documents, in or , in its power, possession, control or custody. 9.5 Order XI er XI Rule 1 (5) further provides that t ed hat the plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on docu documents, which were in the plaintif or intiff’s power, possession, control or custody and no d not disclosed along with plaint or wi ut r within the extended period set out above, save an e and except by leave of Court and s nly nd such leave shall be granted only upon the plaint laintiff establishing reasonable cause f he se for non-disclosure along with the plaint. Therefo refore on combined reading of Order XI der XI Rule 1 (4) read with Order XI Rule 1 (5), it em it emerges that (i) in case of urgent fil ve nt filings the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on add additional documents; (ii) within thir (iii) thirty days of filing of the suit; (iii) making out a re a reasonable cause for non-disclosure sure along with plaint. 9.6 Therefor refore a further thirty days’ time is pro on provided to the plaintiff to place on record or file s file such additional documents in cou is court and a declaration on oath is required to be be filed by the plaintiff as was require for uired as per Order XI Rule 1 (3) if for any reasonable able cause for non-disclosure along ts, ng with the plaint, the documents, which were in e in the plaintiff’s power, possessio ot ssion, control or custody and not disclosed along long with plaint. Therefore plaintiff a ntiff has to satisfy and establish a reasonable caus cause for non-disclosure along with pla e, th plaint. However, at the same time, the requiremen ment of establishing the reasonable the ble cause for non-disclosure of the documents alon along with the plaint shall not be appl the applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plai plaintiff that those documents have b in ave been found subsequently and in fact were not in ot in the plaintiff’s power, possession me ssion, control or custody at the time when the plaint laint was filed. Therefore Order XI Ru (5) XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to t to the commercial suit shall be appl he applicable only with respect to the documents wh which were in plaintiff’s power, pos nd possession, control or custody and JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 11 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 not disclosed sed along with plaint. Therefore, he re, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cau cause in non-disclosure along with p se ith plaint may not arise in the case where the ad additional documents sought to are to be produced/relied upon are discovered sub int.” subsequent to the filing of the plaint.” 14.1 In Trans ransport Corporation of India Vs. R nr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. (supra),Delhi High Co h Court referred to Sudhir Kumar’s as ar’s case (supra) and then held as under:- “43. Perusal of l of the aforesaid excerpts of the judg ule judgment reveals that Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC CPC, as amended by the Act, 2015 sp ely 5 specifies that plaintiffs cannot rely on documents nts that were in their possession, po he n, power, control, or custody at the time of filing th g the plaint but were not disclosed, ex his d, except with the Court's leave. This leave is granted nted only if the plaintiff can establish - lish a reasonable cause for the non- disclosure. 44. A combined ined reading of Order XI Rule 1(4) and as and Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as amended by th y the Act, 2015 indicates that a pla on plaintiff can seek leave to rely on additional docu documents, if they file for it within th nd in thirty days of the suit's filing and provide a reaso easonable cause for not disclosing thes these documents initially. 45. It is further ther observed by this Court that an a ed an additional thirty days are granted to the plaintiff tiff to file or place such documents o ion s on record, along with a declaration on oath explain plaining the reasonable cause for the in r, if he initial non- disclosure. However, if the plaintiff cla f claims that the documents were disc led discovered after the plaint was filed and were not i ot in their possession, power, control ng, trol, or custody at the time of filing, the requireme ement to establish a reasonable cau ot cause for non-disclosure does not apply. Therefor efore, the provisions of Order XI Rule in Rule 1(4) and Rule 1(5) of the CPC in commercial sui suits are relevant only for documen ff's ments initially within the plaintiff's power but not not disclosed. The requirement to est ot establish a reasonable cause is not applicable for d for documents discovered post-filing o ng of the plaint.” 14.2 In the a he above case before Delhi High C re h Court, certain documents were obtained by the pet petitioner through RTI, which we as were sought to be produced as additional document ents. The case was at the initial sta be al stage, as evidence was yet to be led. In these circums umstances, Delhi High Court took th all ok the view that no prejudice shall be caused to the o he opposite party, as the evidenc d/ ence was yet to be conducted/ JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 12 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 adduced by the par parties and that respondent/ def nt defendant would have sufficient opportunities to obje object to the said documents. 15. In Nova Novateur Electrical & Digital Sys ard Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V-Guard Industries Ltd. (supr (supra), the additional documents s rd nts sought to be placed on record by the defendant we t were discovered by the defendan re ndant subsequently and therefore Delhi High Court hel t held that there is no impediment nts ent in taking the said documents on record. 16. In Saffro affron Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem nts Premchand Resorts & Apartments & Ors. case (supra) ra), some documents were disclose he losed in the plaint as well as in the affidavit in lieu of t of the examination-in-chief of the er f the plaintiff, but through sheer inadvertence, they w ey were not annexed or exhibited. W ion ed. While allowing the production of the documents, ts, Bombay High Court reasoned en ed that it was not a case when documents had not b not been disclosed at all. 17. Coming ing to authorities cited by Ld. Cou itin Counsel for respondents, in Nitin Gupta Vs. Texmaco I aco Infrastructure and Holding Limi urt Limited (supra), Delhi High Court has observed as und under:- “37. Unless, the , the Commercial Divisions, while deali so dealing with the commercial suits, so start enforcing cing Rules legislated for commercial ain rcial suits, and refuse to entertain applications for s for late filing of documents, especial of ecially with respect to documents of suspicious char character and continue to show lenie of leniency in the name of ‘interest of justice’ and ‘a li a litigant ought not to suffer for defa ial default of advocate’, the commercial suits will start s art suffering from the same malady wi ve y with which the ordinary suits have come to suffer a ffer and owing whereto the need for t 15 for the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was felt. Com Commercial Division is thus not re ow ot required to entertain or allow applications fo s for late filing of documents, wi ing , without any good cause being established for for non-disclosure thereof along with ein with pleadings. The plaintiff herein has utterly faile failed in this regard. The application he ion nowhere explains as to why the plaintiff, if had had obtained the said letter from the d he he defendant, did not remember the same and make make disclosure of the same at the tim int e time of filing the police complaint and/or at the t he time of filing of this suit, even if t or if the letter had been misplaced or was not imm mmediately available. The form pr of prescribed for filing affidavit of documents req requires a litigant in a commercial s ely ial suit to, even if not immediately JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 13 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 possessed of a of a relevant document, disclose the s so he same. A litigant who fails to do so and also does n es not satisfy the Court while seeking nt, king to belatedly file the document, why no disclos closure of such document was made file ade, cannot be permitted to so file documents. 38. Order XI er XIII Rules (1) & (2) of the CPC as it e ith s it existed prior to amendment with effect from 1st 1st July, 2002, required the docume he uments to be filed at or before the settlement of of issues and no documents could nt uld be received at any subsequent stage unless "g ss "good cause was shown to the sa - e satisfaction of the Court for non- production the thereof". Post amendment with effec ide ffect from 1st July, 2002 of CPC, vide Order VII Rule ule 14(1)&(3) and Order VIII Rule 1A(1 to 1A(1)&(3) a plaintiff was required to file documents ents along with plaint and a defend nts fendant required to file documents along with writ written statement and documents we ed s were not permitted to be received thereafter with without leave of the Court. Prior to 2 led to 2002, the parties, if had not filed the document ent prior to settlement of issues, were as were required to satisfy the Court as to why the doc document was not filed till the stage re age of settlement of issues and were notrequired by d by language of Order XIII Rule (2) t nt (2) to satisfy whether the document was within thei their knowledge or not. I emphasise, ’ ise, only reason for ‘non-production’ was to be state tated and not the reason for ‘non-disc m disclosure’. Though with effect from 1st July, 2002, f 2, for late filing of documents only le to ly leave of the Court was required to be taken but the tes he e test continued to be applied by the Courts for gran granting such leave continued to be as for e as prior to 2002 i.e. of reasons for ‘non-productio ction’ of documents at the stage pro (1) provided therefor. Order XI Rule (1) of the CPC as a as applicable to commercial suits brou he brought about a radical change. The late filing of do f documents thereunder is permitted ble itted applying the test of reasonable cause of ‘non- -disclosure’ of the document at the of. the stage provided for filing thereof. An applicant no t now is required to satisfy the Court ot urt as to why the document was not in his knowledg ledge and if in his knowledge why wa at y was the document not disclosed at the appropriate riate time. Thereunder, documents, e le, ts, even if not immediately available, are required to d to be disclosed.” 18. In Grea Great Gatsby Club of India Vs. M se s. Mahesh Prefab Pvt. Ltd. case (supra), contention tion was raised before the Delhi he lhi High Court that bringing the additional documen ents on record would not cause a ite se any prejudice to the opposite party. Repelling the s the said contention, it was held by D by Delhi High Court:- JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 14 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 “20. Unfortuna tunately, these considerations cannot he not be of any relevance where the suit has been f en filed as a commercial suit, under he der the Commercial Courts Act. The proscription ag n against bringing additional docume pt uments on record, save and except where sufficien icient cause were not filing of the doc or documents along with the plaint or with the writt ritten statement, in the case of th as f the plaint and the defendant, as contained in cla in clauses (5) and (10) of Order XI Rule he Rule 1 of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Co l Courts Act, are absolute. 21.The court ca rt cannot dilute the rigour of the said p or aid provisions on any sympathetic or other considera iderations. It is presumed that these c ind ese considerations were in the mind of the legislatur lature, when they enacted the Comme no mercial Courts Act. There can be no charity beyond ond the law.” 19. In Eicore icore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eex td. . Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (supra), con contention was raised that the pr nts e proposed additional documents were not filed earlie rlier due to oversight and error of t ing of the previous counsel. Repelling the contention, it wa it was held by Delhi High Court as un s under:- “7. The plea tak a taken by the plaintiffs, with regard t ed rd to oversight and error committed by the earlier lier counsel, cannot be a ground to nal to bring on record the additional documents. Fur . Further, the plea that the need for fil on r filing the documents arose only on account of the the stand taken by the defendants in he ts in the written statement, and the additional doc documents have been relied upon he on by the plaintiffs to answer the defendants' ca ' case, cannot be accepted as a reas re reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the the plaint. These pleas and justificatio he ations, as sought to be raised by the plaintiffs, cann annot be a ground to permit filing nts ling of these additional documents under the Com ommercial Courts Act, 2015. 8. As to what co at constitutes reasonable cause within as ithin the ambit of Order XI of CPC, as amended by t by the Commercial Court Act, 2015 ela 15, this Court in the case of Bela Creation Pvt. Lt t. Ltd. Versus Anuj Textiles, held as foll s follows: "xxx xxx 24... "Re "Reasonable cause", necessarily, must r ide st refer to a cause which was outside the contr ontrol of the petitioner, and which prev he revented the petitioner from filing the concerne erned documents along with the written ten statement. xxx xxx x xx xxx" JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 15 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 (Emphasis Supplied) 9. The docum cuments 1 to 3, as sought to be b nal e brought on record as additional documents by by way of the present application, nd ion, are documents, which beyond doubt, existed ted prior to the institution of the p er, e present suit and were in power, possession, co , control and custody of the plaintif nts intiffs. Therefore, these documents cannot be take taken on record in the absence of est for f establishing a reasonable cause for non-disclosure ure along with the plaint, by the plaint laintiffs. 10. This Court urt further notes that there has been he een an inordinate delay in filing the present applica plication before this Court. The prese on resent application was filed only on 16th October, 2 er, 2023, after a period of about one y ion ne year from filing of the replication on 16th Decem cember, 2022. It is evident that the do he e documents have been filed by the plaintiff with t th the replication, in order to fill the se, l the lacunas of the plaintiffs' case, which is not pe t permissible under stringent deadline ct, dlines of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 11. The provisi visions and timeline of the Commerc be ercial Courts Act are required to be strictly constr trued. Additional documents can cannot be taken on record in in commercial pro l proceedings, if there is lack of reas in reasonable cause and negligence in non-filing of do f documents, at an earlier stage.” 20. Taking ing similar view in Bank of Baro nd Baroda Vs. Gujrat Cables and Enamelled Products ucts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Bombay High er High Court held that plea of sheer inadvertence or ove oversight would not furnish or co for r constitute reasonable cause for granting leave unde nder Order XI Rule 1 CPC as applic its. pplicable to the commercial suits. Same view has been een taken later on by Delhi High Co ma h Court in Rishi Raj Vs. Saregama India Limited, (supra upra). 21. In Sareg Saregama India Ltd. Vs. Zee Ent td. Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (supra), additional d al documents were sought to be fi up e filed to counter the case set up by the defendants in ts in their written statement and th led d that the same could not be filed along with the plain plaint. It was also the contention t nts on that the proposed documents were relevant and ne d necessary for adjudication of the he the case and that recording of the evidence was yet to et to begin in the case and there be herefore, no prejudice would be caused to the defen efendant, if the documents are take urt taken on record. Delhi High Court JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 16 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 after referring to the the relevant provisions of Order XI he er XI Rule 1 CPC, and repelling the aforesaid contention tions held as under:- “27. A perusal o sal of the aforesaid provisions would s its, uld show that in all commercial suits, the plaintiff is o f is obliged to file a list of documents a in nts and photocopies of documents in its power, poss possession, control or custody pertai he ertaining to the suit along with the plaint. These d se documents would include docum he cuments referred and relied in the plaint as well a ell as documents relating to any matte gs, atter in question in the proceedings, even if the sam ase. same is adverse to the plaintiff's case. 28. Sub-Rule (1 le (1) (c) provides certain exceptions t of ns to the aforesaid Rule. In terms of Sub-Rule (1) (c ) (c) (ii) of Order XI Rule 1, an except he ception is provided in respect of the documents, wh , which are in answer to any case set nt set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of t of the plaint. 29. Sub-Rule ( le (5) mandates that the plaintiff s on iff shall not be allowed to rely on documents whi which were in the plaintiff's power, po nd r, possession, control or custody and not disclosed in ed in the plaint and nor filed within the in n the extended period as provided in sub-Rule (4) ex ) except with the leave of the Cour ble ourt and upon showing reasonable cause for the sa e same. XXXX 38. The plaintif intiff has invoked sub-Rule (1) (c) (ii) o - (ii) of Order XI Rule 1 read with sub- Rule (5) of Ord Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC to file add nt additional documents. As is evident from the passa assages set out above, it has specifica tiff ifically been pleaded by the plaintiff that the afores oresaid documents are being filed to he d to counter the case set up by the defendant and and hence, could not be filed at the ti er, e time of filing of the suit. However, no explanation tion has been given by the plaintiff as nts f as to why the aforesaid documents were not filed filed along with the replication. Fur to Further, the plaintiff has failed to provide any re y reasonable cause for filing the afore , 5 foresaid documents at this stage, 5 years after the the replication was filed.” 22. Thus, th s, the legal position is that though me ough under the pre-2002 regime (Order XIII Rule 2 CP 2 CPC), late filing was allowed if "go ion "good cause" for non-production was shown, but post post-2002 amendments, Order VII R 1A VII Rule 14 and Order VIII Rule 1A required documents ents are to be filed with the pleadi ed eadings, with Court leave needed thereafter. However ever, under the commercial suits is its regime, a higher threshold is JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 17 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 applied - the party m rty must now explain not just why ed, hy a document wasn't produced, but why it wasn't ev t even disclosed earlier, if it was kno known or existed. 23. The sta statutory scheme under Order X er XI Rule 1 CPC, as amended, ed, imposes strict obliga bligations of disclosure on parties by ies to a commercial suit, thereby intending to curb t rb the culture of trial by ambush ush and to promote procedural ral discipline, case mana anagement, and expedition in adju adjudication. 24. The foll following principles emerge from he rom a series of decisions of the Delhi and Bombay H ay High Courts, as have been cited a ed above: (i) Mandator atory Early Disclosure: The plaintiff ery intiff is required to file, at the very inception of t of the suit, all documents in its p or its power, possession, control, or custody, regar egardless of whether such docume its uments support or undermine its case. A simila milar duty is cast upon the defend he fendant at the stage of filing the written statem atement. (ii) Narrow E w Exceptions: The only exception (ii) ion under Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) relates to docu documents, which are in answer to by r to a case subsequently set up by the defendant dant. Even such documents must b nd st be disclosed at the earliest and with due expla xplanation. (iii) Standard dard of "Reasonable Cause": Sub to Sub-rule (5) permits the Court to grant leave to e to rely upon undisclosed docume ied uments only upon being satisfied that there exis existed a “reasonable cause” for s in or such non-disclosure. As held in Eicore Techno chnologies and Bela Creation Pvt. L n- vt. Ltd. v. Anuj Textiles, “reason- able cause” m ” must be interpreted to mean circ y’s circumstances beyond the party’s control. Pleas leas of oversight, inadvertence, or e i- or error by counsel donot consti- tute reasonab nable cause. (iv) No Leew eeway for Strategic or Delayed F s- d Filings:The courts have consis- tently rejected cted attempts to file documents at l- s at later stages—such as after fil- ing of replicat lication or commencement of trial x- trial—where such documents ex- isted earlier a ier and were within the party’s kn ing s knowledge or possession. Filing JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 18 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 such documen ments merely to plug gaps in the ca he e case or respond tactically to the defendant’s st t’s stand is impermissible under the the Commercial Courts Act. (v) Strict Con Construction of Procedural Timel a- imelines:The intent of the legisla- ture, as reflec flected in the scheme of the Comm rce mmercial Courts Act, is to enforce procedural rig l rigor. Courts must therefore resis n- esist granting leave casually or in- voking equitab uitable maxims like “interest of jus to f justice” or “fault of counsel” to override statu tatutory requirements. 25. In the li he light of the abovesaid legal pos to position, stage is set to look into the impugned ord order, whether it is legally su sustainable nd in the facts and circumstances of the f the present case. 26. The Co Commercial Court while reject he jecting the application of the petitioner-plaintiff u iff under Order 11 Rule 1(5) CPC has has observed as under:- “13. Firstly, t tly, the applicant/plaintiff wants to ual to tender balance sheets/annual returns and re d relevant financial statements of th 16 f the defendants for the year 2016 to 2020. Learn earned counsel for the applicant has in has argued that the defendants in their written st en statement have claimed forfeiture by ture of the security interest paid by the plaintiff a iff and have relied upon alleged su ed supplementary agreement dated 24.11.2016 an 6 and alleged cancellation agreement , it ent dated 18.12.2017. However, it is seen that the t the documents sought to be tender se ndered are stated to be in response to written state statement filed by defendants no.1 a he .1 and 2 subsequent to filing of the plaint. The wr written statement in this case was 22 was originally filed on 29.10.2022 before the Co Court of Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, th (Jr. v, the then learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurugr rugram in case bearing CIS no. C urt o. CS-2770-2022. The said court returned the p he plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC ion CPC on 09.01.2023 with a direction to both the pa e parties to appear before this court to urt on 21.01.2023. In pursuance to direction issue ssued by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. D as (Jr. Divn.), Gurugram, the plaint was presented bef before this court on 21.01.2023 a ns 3 and in pursuance to directions issued, learned rned counsel for defendant no.3 app he appeared before this court on the same date and and filed its written statement befo ate before this court on the same date and court noti notice was issued to defendants no. he no.1 and 2. However, since all the original plead leadings were returned by the le n.), e learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 19 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 Gurugram, the , the plaintiff at the time of present urt enting the plaint before this court also placed be d before this court, the original writt of ritten statement filed on behalf of defendants no s no.1 & 2 and other written state o.3 statement filed by defendant no.3 along with th h the plaint on 21.01.2023. Since n ince the pleadings were not in consonance w e with the requirements of amended ial nded CPC applicable to commercial disputes, the c he court directed the parties to verif by verify their respective pleadings by filing stateme ement of truth in support of their re en ir respective pleadings i.e. written statements as s as statement of truth in support o me rt of plaint was filed on the same date. Thus, al s, all these facts were in the not m notice of applicant/plaintiff from 29.10.2022 on 2 onwards but no such applicatio he ication was then moved by the applicant/plain plaintiff and instead the applicant/p nt nt/plaintiff has moved the present application no now which cannot be allowed. Oth eir Otherwise also onus to prove their defence is on on defendants no.1 & 2 and to rebu tiff rebut their case, applicant/plaintiff may put these hese documents in the cross-exam ess xamination of defendant’s witness which is permi rmitted under Order XI Rule (1)(c)(i) c)(i) CPC. 14. The oth other document sought to be tender by ndered by the applicant/plaintiff by way of this app application is copy of application dat ed dated 19.02.2024 and order dated 14.03.2024 rel 4 relating to a criminal complaint. T by nt. The application was moved by applicant/plain plaintiff on 19.02.2024 before the an the concerned court on which an order was pas passed on 14.03.2024 vide which it ion h it is claimed that the application moved by the the applicant/plaintiff was allowed a ot ed and cancellation report was not accepted and nd further investigation was orde nal ordered. First of all, the criminal proceedings ar gs are separate than the present pro ant t proceedings. So it is not relevant for proper adju adjudication of the present case. O ion se. Otherwise also, the application was moved on d on behalf of applicant/plaintiff itsel on itself and order was also passed on 14.03.2024 bu 4 but despite that the present appl for application seeking permission for placing on rec record these documents has been ing en moved on 18.01.2025 knowing that the Hon’b on’ble High Court has asked this cou me court to decide this suit in a time bound manner nner vide order dated 17.09.2024 pa in 4 passed by Hon’ble High Court in FAO-COM-16 -2023 (O&M), titled as ‘M3M Ind GF India Private Limited Versus MGF Developments ents Limited and others’. So the delay nd delay in moving the application and relevance of th of the document for proper adjudicat ed. dication of the suit are not justified. So these docum ocuments also cannot be taken on re n record. JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 20 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 15. The app applicant/plaintiff also wants to te nt o tender full and final settlement documents exe s executed by Mr. Ravi Khera at the ti er, e time of leaving the job. However, this fact was a as already in knowledge of plaintiff i no tiff in the year 2022 but till date no action was tak s taken by plaintiff to tender these as ese documents and this delay has remained unex unexplained. 16. Lastly, t ly, the applicant/plaintiff also want int ants to tender copy of complaint dated 28.03.20 3.2022 made by applicant/plaintiff try tiff to Director Town and Country and Planning and representation/complaint d t dated 10.03.2023 by filed by applicant/plain plaintiff before HRERA. Even th he these documents are of the applicant/plain plaintiff itself and were in its knowle ut owledge and possession earlier but for the reasons sons best known to it the same were ter were not filed earlier and now after a delay of alm almost two years, these documents en nts cannot be allowed to be taken on record as n as no reasonable cause or relevance en ance of these documents has been shown by the a the applicant/plaintiff. 17. As per sta r statutory provisions applicable to he e to commercial disputes, all the documents sou s sought to be relied upon have to b he to be placed on file along with the pleadings or a or at the first instance when the a ut he applicant came to know about these docume uments and considered it necessar se essary to place reliance on these documents. In s. In the present case, the applicant/p - nt/plaintiff kept silent for almost 2- 3 years for pla r placing the documents on case file to file and the documents relating to criminal proce roceedings are not even relevant f he nt for proper adjudication of the present case. M se. Most of these documents are of ich e of applicant/plaintiff itself, which were in its kno knowledge, custody and possession b ed ion but still they were not tendered on the case fil e file. So no ground for allowing the he the application for permitting the applicant/plain plaintiff now to tender these additio file ditional documents on the case file ” is made out.” 27. It is, thu , thus, clear that at the time of filin ivil filing of initial suit before Ld. Civil Judge in 2022, the g he grievance of the plaintiff was th as s that amount of ₹ 88 crores was refundable but had b ad been wrongly made non-refund led undable. The defendants had filed the written stateme ement and thus, the nature of di se f dispute was such that in case plaintiff considered red the balance-sheets of the defen , efendants as relevant documents, it was obligated to p to present the same along with the he the plaint. Plaintiff when filed the JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 21 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 suit before the Com Commercial Court, it annexed ther , therewith the written statement, which had been fil n filed by the defendants in the tiff the earlier suit. In case plaintiff considered the bala balance sheets for the year 2016 to be 6 to 2020 of the defendants to be relevant, it could ha d have been disclosed and produc he oduced the same along with the plaint. Not only this this, plaintiff was allowed to amen on mend the plaint twice, initially on 06.09.2023 and then then on 09.12.2024 but still along he ong with the amended plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner fa er failed to annex the proposed ba ial d balance sheets. The Commercial Court has also rig rightly observed that since bal he balance sheets pertain to the defendants, the pla plaintiff may put them in cross ts’ ross-examination of defendants’ witnesses under Ord r Order XI Rule 1(c)(1) of CPC. 28. Similarly ilarly, the application dated 19 ed 19.02.2024 and order dated 14.03.2024 pertainin aining to the criminal complaint, w to t, which the plaintiff proposes to produce in additio tional documents, were very much he uch in its knowledge, when the amended plaints we were filed but still plaintiff failed to d to do so. 29. So far a far as other documents i.e. full an nt ll and final settlement document pertaining to Ravi Kh vi Khera at the time of leaving the ed the job; and the complaint dated 28.03.2022 made by e by the plaintiff to the Director, To nd r, Town and Country Planning and representation/ com complaint dated 10.03.2023 are ery are concerned, these were very much in the power, p er, possession and custody of the p tiff he plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff cannot be allowed t ed to contend that these documen to ments were not produced due to sheer inadvertence o ce or mistake. 30. As far a ar as sub-rule (12) of Order XI Rule 1 sel ule 1 CPC, as relied by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to r to justify the production of additi ed, dditional documents is concerned, said provision is app applicable to the documents, wh ce which have come into existence later on. However, n er, none of the documents which ar by h are proposed to be produced by the plaintiff are su such, which came into existenc nt/ tence after filing of the plaint/ amended plaint by t by the plaintiff. As such, plaintiff-pe to petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of su f sub-rule (12). 31. It is thu thus clear that the documents so he s sought to be introduced by the plaintiff were within thin its possession and knowledge a he ge at the time of institution of the suit. No credible exp explanation constituting "reasonab for nable cause" has been offered for JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 22 of 23 CR NO. 2227 OF 202 2025 the failure to disclos close such documents at the appro d- propriate stage. The plea of inad- vertence is neither t er tenable nor sufficient to warran in rrant the exercise of discretion in favour of the plaintif intiff. 32. Having ing regard to the scheme & objec PC bjective of Order XI Rule 1 CPC applicable to the Co e Commercial Courts and the legal to egal position, this Court comes to the conclusion that hat no illegality, error or perversity he rsity has been committed by the Commercial Court in rt in declining the application of th rd of the plaintiff to place on record the proposed additio ditional documents under Order XI ly, er XI Rule 1(5) CPC. Consequently, holding the present sent revision petition to be devoid is evoid of any merits, the same is hereby dismissed. 26.05.2025 Jiten (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned: Whether reportable: ed: Yes/ No Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.27 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N. 23 of 23