Case Note & Summary
The Plaintiff, Saffron Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a Commercial Summary Suit (No. 113 of 2019) against Premchand Resorts and Apartments and others for recovery of an admitted liability. The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application (L) No. 31223 of 2024 under Order XI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) seeking leave to produce additional documents: balance sheets of Defendant No.1 for the years ending 31st March 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, and email correspondence dated 28th November 2015, 28th January 2016, 5th February 2016, and 11th February 2016 exchanged between the Plaintiff and Defendants. The Plaintiff also sought permission to file a further affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief or to conduct further examination-in-chief to admit these documents in evidence. The Plaintiff argued that the balance sheets showed Defendant No.1's admission of debt, except for the 2017 balance sheet where the admission was retracted, and the emails showed the Defendants reneging on payment obligations. The Plaintiff claimed that the documents were referred to in the plaint and affidavit of evidence but were not annexed due to inadvertence and lack of coordination, as the Plaintiff's director (Mr. Rahul Gupta) resided in Dubai since 2013 while the advocates were in Mumbai. The Plaintiff filed the application immediately upon realizing the omission during the witness's visit to India for cross-examination. The Defendants opposed the application, arguing that the Plaintiff violated disclosure obligations under Order XI Rule 1(1) by failing to annex the documents despite multiple opportunities since the suit was filed in December 2018. The Defendants contended that sheer inadvertence does not constitute reasonable cause under Order XI Rule 5, relying on Bank of Baroda v. Gujarat Cables (2023). The Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Defendants. The Court held that the Plaintiff established reasonable cause for non-disclosure, as the documents were crucial for determining the real issue, the Defendants were aware of them (they originated from the Defendants), and the cross-examination had not yet commenced. The Court distinguished the Bank of Baroda case, noting that it dealt with Rule 10 (defendant's documents) and the facts here involved documents already referred to in pleadings and evidence. The Court permitted the Plaintiff to produce the documents and file a further affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, with the Defendants given an opportunity to cross-examine on the new documents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Commercial Suits - Production of Additional Documents - Order XI Rule 5 CPC - Reasonable Cause - The Plaintiff sought leave to produce balance sheets and email correspondence that were referred to in the plaint and affidavit of evidence but not annexed due to inadvertence and lack of coordination between the Plaintiff's director (resident in Dubai) and the advocates in Mumbai. The Court held that the Plaintiff established reasonable cause for non-disclosure, as the documents were crucial for determining the real issue and the Defendants were aware of them. The application was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 25,000. (Paras 1-14) B) Civil Procedure - Commercial Suits - Interpretation of Order XI Rules 1 and 5 CPC - Pari Materia with Rule 10 - The Court distinguished the decision in Bank of Baroda v. Gujarat Cables (2023) which dealt with Rule 10 (defendant's documents), noting that Rule 5 is similar but the facts here involved documents already referred to in pleadings and evidence, and the delay was explained by inadvertence and lack of coordination. The Court held that the Plaintiff's explanation constituted reasonable cause under Rule 5. (Paras 7-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Plaintiff should be granted leave under Order XI Rule 5 of the CPC to produce additional documents (balance sheets and email correspondence) that were not annexed with the plaint or affidavit of evidence, and whether the Plaintiff has established reasonable cause for non-disclosure.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the Interim Application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Defendants. The Plaintiff is permitted to produce the balance sheets and email correspondence and to file a further affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The Defendants are given an opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witness on the new documents.
Law Points
- Order XI Rule 5 CPC
- reasonable cause for non-disclosure
- inadvertence
- lack of coordination
- commercial suits
- production of documents
- further examination-in-chief
