Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, the defendant in a commercial suit, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 22-07-2025 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District, in Commercial O.S.No.307 of 2024. The impugned order rejected IA No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking production of documents. The High Court observed that the trial court's order was cryptic and did not assign any reasons for rejecting the application. The court noted that in a commercial suit, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 CPC are mandatory and must be complied with, as per Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the order dated 22-07-2025 was quashed, and the trial court was directed to consider IA No.3 afresh in accordance with law, after hearing both sides.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order 11 Rule 1 CPC - Commercial Suit - The trial court rejected the defendant's application for production of documents without assigning reasons and without considering the mandatory requirement under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Held that the order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. (Paras 1-5)
B) Commercial Courts Act - Mandatory Compliance - Section 15 - Order 11 Rule 1 CPC - In a commercial suit, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 CPC are mandatory and the court must consider the application for production of documents in accordance with law. The impugned order failed to do so. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC for production of documents without considering the mandatory nature of the provision and the requirement under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22-07-2025 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District, in Commercial O.S.No.307 of 2024 on IA No.3 is quashed. The trial court is directed to consider IA No.3 afresh in accordance with law, after hearing both sides.
Law Points
- Order 11 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 15 Commercial Courts Act 2015
- Production of documents
- Commercial suit
- Mandatory compliance
- Rejection of IA without reasons
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 7
WP No. 23634 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Sri Krishna Kishore S. (for petitioner), Sri I.S. Devaiah (for respondent)
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited
Ficus Pax Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order rejecting an application for production of documents in a commercial suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 22-07-2025 passed by the trial court on IA No.3 filed under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioner's application for production of documents without assigning reasons and without considering the mandatory provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 CPC and Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed the impugned order on 22-07-2025 in Commercial O.S.No.307 of 2024.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC without considering its mandatory nature?
Whether the impugned order is sustainable in law?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court failed to consider the mandatory requirement of Order 11 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The respondent opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
In a commercial suit, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 CPC are mandatory and must be complied with. The trial court's rejection of an application for production of documents without assigning reasons and without considering the mandatory requirement is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner/defendant-IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short) is at the doors of this Court, calling in question an order dated 22-07-2025 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru in Commercial O.S.No.307 of 2024.
The impugned order is cryptic and does not assign any reasons for rejecting the application.
In a commercial suit, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 CPC are mandatory and must be complied with, as per Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Procedural History
The petitioner/defendant filed IA No.3 under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC in Commercial O.S.No.307 of 2024 pending before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District. The trial court rejected the IA by order dated 22-07-2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 11 Rule 1
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 15
- Constitution of India: Article 227
