Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of Rs.9,91,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. The plaintiff filed I.A. No.15 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking leave to produce additional documents, namely email correspondence and excel sheets recording diesel sales, on the ground that they were secured from her Auditor subsequent to filing of the suit and were voluminous. The defendant opposed the application contending that the documents had been mentioned in the plaint itself and that no leave under Order XI Rule 1(4) had been sought for their production. The Commercial Court allowed the application, observing that refusal would cause multiplicity of proceedings, miscarriage of justice and delay. The petitioner-defendant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order. The High Court examined the statutory scheme under Order XI Rule 1 of the amended CPC. It noted that Rule 1(1) to 1(3) requires the plaintiff to file a complete list of documents with the plaint along with a declaration on oath, Rule 1(4) permits additional documents in urgent filings only with leave of court within thirty days, and Rule 1(5) allows subsequent production only upon establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure. The Court found that the plaintiff had clearly referred to the documents in the plaint and had stated they would be produced during trial, indicating prior knowledge and intention. It held that the plaintiff ought to have either produced the documents with the plaint or sought leave under Rule 1(4), and that the failure to do so was contrary to the object of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the documents were in the possession of the Auditor, holding that possession of the Auditor amounts to extended possession of the plaintiff. It further rejected the argument that the documents were voluminous, relying on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. that evidence however voluminous cannot water down statutory intent. The Court underscored that the Commercial Courts Act aims at fast and efficient resolution of commercial disputes through strict deadlines, and that lenient bypassing of procedures would defeat that object. Accordingly, the High Court held that the Commercial Court committed an error in allowing I.A. No.15 and allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Commercial Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Additional Documents in Commercial Suits - Order XI Rule 1(4) and 1(5) CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Leave of court mandatory for documents not filed with plaint; reasonable cause required - Plaintiff mentioned documents in plaint and intended to produce during trial, but failed to seek leave under Rule 1(4); Commercial Court allowed under Rule 1(5) without reasonable cause - Held trial court erred; production contrary to statutory scheme (Paras 5-10).
B) Civil Procedure - Possession of Documents through Agent/Auditor - Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC - Possession by auditor amounts to extended possession of plaintiff - Documents with auditor not a reasonable cause for non-production; plaintiff could not claim later discovery - Held documents remained under plaintiff's control and should have been disclosed (Para 11).
C) Civil Procedure - Voluminous Documents and Statutory Compliance - Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Volume of documents cannot water down statutory rigours - Relied on Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Standard Chartered Bank - Held plaintiff ought to seek leave even if voluminous; absence of leave fatal (Paras 12-13).
D) Commercial Courts Act - Object of Speedy Dispute Resolution - Strict procedural timelines - Bypassing procedures defeats object - Held lenient approach not permissible; strict compliance necessary to avoid delays in commercial disputes (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court was justified in allowing I.A. No.15 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to permit the plaintiff to produce additional documents despite non-compliance with Order XI Rule 1(4) and absence of reasonable cause for non-production along with plaint.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the Commercial Court committed an error in allowing I.A. No.15 and allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Commercial Court in Com.O.S. No.1266/2022.
Law Points
- Order XI Rule 1 CPC requires plaintiff to file all documents with plaint and disclose on oath
- additional documents in urgent filings require leave under Rule 1(4) within 30 days
- documents in plaintiff's power
- possession
- control or custody not disclosed can be relied only with leave under Rule 1(5) upon reasonable cause
- possession of auditor is extended possession of plaintiff
- voluminous evidence cannot water down statutory intent
- Commercial Courts Act mandates strict timelines for speedy dispute resolution
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (08) 78
W.P. No.20133/2023 (GM-CPC)
CNR: KAHC010472442023, NC: 2026:KHC:47016
Sri Srinandan K for petitioner; Sri D.P. Mahesh for respondent
M/s. KPN Travels Pvt Ltd., and M/s. KPN Travels India Limited, represented by authorized signatory Mr. T. Tamilanban
Smt. Shilpa M.B., Proprietor of M/s Nandini Fuel Station
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 of the Commercial Court allowing production of additional documents in a commercial suit for recovery.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-defendant sought quashing of the order dated 23.08.2023 passed on I.A. No.15 in Com.O.S. No.1266/2022 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Exclusive Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru, insofar as it allowed production of additional documents.
Filing Reason
The Commercial Court allowed the respondent-plaintiff's I.A. No.15 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the amended CPC to produce additional documents despite non-compliance with Order XI Rule 1(4) and without reasonable cause for non-production of documents along with the plaint.
Previous Decisions
The Commercial Court by order dated 23.08.2023 allowed I.A. No.15 in Com.O.S. No.1266/2022 permitting the plaintiff to produce additional documents on the ground that refusal would cause multiplicity of proceedings, miscarriage of justice and delay.
Issues
Whether leave under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the amended CPC is mandatory for production of additional documents mentioned in the plaint but not filed with it.
Whether the respondent-plaintiff established reasonable cause under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the amended CPC for non-production of documents along with the plaint.
Whether possession of documents by an Auditor amounts to extended possession of the plaintiff, thereby negating reasonable cause for non-disclosure.
Whether the voluminous nature of documents can excuse non-compliance with the statutory timelines under Order XI Rule 1 of the amended CPC.
Whether the Commercial Court's lenient approach in allowing additional documents defeated the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner-defendant argued that the Commercial Court passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of material; documents sought to be produced were already mentioned in the plaint, showing plaintiff's possession; no leave was sought under Order XI Rule 1(4); no reasonable justification was provided under Rule 1(5); strict compliance with amended CPC provisions was mandatory; relied on Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., Bela Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. Anuj Textiles, M/s. Bestech India Private Limited v. Fakira Singh (Deceased) through LRs and Another, and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Ficus Pax Private Limited.
Respondent-plaintiff contended that the documents were genuinely secured from the Auditor after filing of the suit, hence delay was justified; the documents were voluminous and incomplete; they were relevant for adjudication; no prejudice would be caused to the defendant; the decisions relied on by the other side were distinguishable on facts.
Ratio Decidendi
Strict compliance with Order XI Rule 1 of CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory. Documents in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody, including extended possession through an agent or auditor, must be disclosed with the plaint. Additional production requires leave under Rule 1(4) within thirty days or under Rule 1(5) upon establishing reasonable cause. The plaintiff's prior mention of documents in the plaint and intended production during trial negates any reasonable cause for subsequent production. Voluminous nature of documents cannot dilute statutory requirements. The object of the Commercial Courts Act to provide speedy resolution of commercial disputes through strict timelines cannot be defeated by lenient procedural bypass.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with the plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint.
The possession of the Auditor amounts to an extended possession of the documents by the plaintiff.
Evidence however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and rigours of the statue.
The Commercial Court has committed an error in allowing the application solely on the ground that not allowing the same would cause multiplicity of proceeding, miscarriage of justice and further delay.
Procedural History
Respondent-plaintiff filed Com.O.S. No.1266/2022 against petitioner-defendant seeking recovery of Rs.9,91,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. In the suit, plaintiff filed I.A. No.15 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the amended CPC seeking leave to produce additional documents. Defendant opposed the application. The Commercial Court by order dated 23.08.2023 allowed I.A. No.15. Petitioner-defendant filed W.P. No.20133/2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order. The High Court heard the matter and reserved orders on 25.08.2026, and pronounced judgment on 31.08.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XI Rule 1(1), Order XI Rule 1(2), Order XI Rule 1(3), Order XI Rule 1(4), Order XI Rule 1(5)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015:
