Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/S. JSM Corporation Private Limited, was the defendant in Commercial Original Suit No.835 of 2023 filed by the respondents, M/S. Brunton Developers and M/S. Prestige Cuisine, seeking eviction. During the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.III under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC seeking permission to produce certain documents. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 05.02.2025. The defendant challenged this order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner argued that the documents should have been filed at the first hearing and that the trial court erred in allowing late production. The respondents contended that the provision does not mandate filing only at the first hearing and that the court has discretion. The High Court analyzed Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC and held that the provision does not impose a mandatory requirement to file documents only at the first hearing; it allows the court to permit production at a later stage if sufficient cause is shown. The court found that the trial court had exercised its discretion properly and that no prejudice was caused to the defendant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC - Commercial Suit - The court held that Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC does not mandate that documents must be filed only at the first hearing; the provision allows the court to permit production of documents at a later stage if sufficient cause is shown. The trial court's discretion to allow such production was upheld. (Paras 5-10)
B) Commercial Law - Commercial Suit - Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The court observed that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not override the CPC provisions regarding production of documents; the trial court has discretion to allow late production of documents if it does not cause prejudice to the other party. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff to produce documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC after the first hearing had commenced, and whether the provision mandates that all documents must be filed only at the first hearing.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 05.02.2025 allowing I.A.No.III for production of documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC.
Law Points
- Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC
- Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Section 16
- Production of documents
- First hearing
- Discretion of court
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (06) 30
Writ Petition No.10679 of 2025 (GM - CPC)
Sri Ajesh Kumar S. for petitioner, Sri C.K. Nandakumar (Senior Advocate) for respondents
M/S. JSM Corporation Private Limited
M/S. Brunton Developers and M/S. Prestige Cuisine
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging trial court order allowing production of documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC in a commercial suit for eviction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the trial court order dated 05.02.2025 allowing I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiffs for production of documents.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to produce documents after the first hearing had commenced.
Previous Decisions
Trial court allowed I.A.No.III on 05.02.2025.
Issues
Whether Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC mandates that documents must be filed only at the first hearing?
Whether the trial court's discretion to allow late production of documents was properly exercised?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the documents should have been filed at the first hearing and the trial court erred in allowing late production.
Respondents argued that Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC does not mandate filing only at the first hearing and the court has discretion to allow production at a later stage.
Ratio Decidendi
Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC does not mandate that documents must be filed only at the first hearing; the court has discretion to permit production of documents at a later stage if sufficient cause is shown, and such discretion was properly exercised by the trial court.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner/defendant in Commercial Original Suit No.835 of 2023 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 05-02-2025 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru allowing I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiff seeking to produce documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC.
Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC does not mandate that documents must be filed only at the first hearing; the provision allows the court to permit production of documents at a later stage if sufficient cause is shown.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Commercial Original Suit No.835 of 2023 for eviction. During the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.III under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC seeking permission to produce documents. The trial court allowed the application on 05.02.2025. The defendant filed Writ Petition No.10679 of 2025 challenging that order. The High Court reserved orders on 04.06.2025 and pronounced on 10.06.2025, dismissing the writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XI Rule 1(5)
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 16
