Commercial Summary Suit — Production of Additional Documents Allowed Subject to Costs

The Court allowed the production of additional documents, noting that: a) The documents were already referred to in the plaint and affidavit of evidence. b) No prejudice would be caused to the Defendants, as the documents originated from them. c) The Plaintiff established a reasonable cause for the delay, based on lack of coordination and the witness’s overseas residence. (Para 16–21)

The Court emphasized that procedural rules should facilitate justice and not be used to penalize inadvertent lapses when no prejudice is caused to the other party.

Costs: The Court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Plaintiff to be deposited with the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Order XI Rule 1(5) — Disclosure and Discovery of Documents

• Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Amendments to the CPC for Commercial Suits

Subjects:

Commercial Suit — Production of Documents — Examination-in-Chief — Reasonable Cause — Admission of Liability — Cross-Examination

Nature of the Litigation: A Commercial Summary Suit was filed by Saffron Developers Pvt. Ltd. against Premchand Resorts and Apartments & Ors. for recovery of an admitted debt.

Relief Sought by the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff sought the Court’s leave to produce additional documents, namely the balance sheets of the Defendant and email correspondence, and to file a further affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.

Reason for Filing the Application: The Plaintiff claimed inadvertence and lack of coordination as reasons for not annexing the documents earlier, despite their reference in the plaint and affidavit of evidence.

Prior Decisions: The balance sheets and emails were mentioned in the pleadings but not produced. The Defendants argued against allowing late production, citing procedural requirements under Order XI of the CPC.

Issues:

a) Whether the Plaintiff established reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the initial stage. b) Whether the late production of documents would prejudice the Defendants.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Plaintiff: Argued that the documents were crucial for deciding the matter, and their omission was due to inadvertence and lack of coordination.

• Defendants: Contended that the Plaintiff violated disclosure obligations and should not be allowed to rely on undisclosed documents.