Interim Order 17

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Item No. 06
CS (Comm) No. 674/2023
CANARA BANK.
VS.
MANPREET SINGH
10.11.2025
Present: Ld. Counsel Mr. Sumit Saurav, for the plaintiff bank.
Defendant is already exparte.
ORDER (oral)
1. Two applications, one u/o XI rule 5(3) & (5) read with Section
16 (more appropriately under Order XI Rule 1 (5) and (10)) of the
Commercial Court Act, 2015 for taking on record the Bank Statement
Account No.9002140000 and Second u/O XVIII rule 17 read with
section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence, moved on behalf of
plaintiff are pending for disposal.
2. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff states that inadvertently the
complete document i.e. Bank Statement Account No.90021400001738
of defendants has not been completely filed in the evidence led by
the plaintiff and now the plaintiff intends to place on record the
aforesaid documents which are mandatory for just and fair
adjudication of the controversy in issue.
3. The present suit pertains to recovery of money against the
...2/p..
-- 1 of 3 --
/ 2 /
defendants. As such, the documents sought to be filed on record are
necessary for just and fair adjudication of the instant dispute and the
money involved in the present matter is a public money. The
defendants are already exparte. The Hon’ble Supreme court in
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs. HT Media Ltd. 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 2636 has laid down the principle of law in respect of the
Order XI Rule 1 (5) and (10) in as much as the stringent clause for
filing additional document is concerned. In a recent judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Sudhir Kumar Vs. Vinay Kumar G.B.
reported in AIR 2021 SC 4303, the Hon’ble Apex Court has gone to
the extent of analyzing the requirement of filing additional
documents subject to the aforesaid stringent provisions as under the
Order XI Rule 1 (5) and (10) of CPC as applicable to Commercial
disputes. The documents sought for are necessary for just and fair
adjudication of the matter. Further, the plaintiff is a public sector bank
and the money involved is public money and as such it would be in
the interest of justice, if the application is taken with the principle of
requiring just and fair adjudication of the real controversy between the
parties. Accordingly, interest of justice would be met, if the
application is allowed, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited
with DLSA (Central). The documents are taken on record.
4. In so far as the application u/O XVIII rule 17 read with section
151 CPC is concerned, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff seeks permission to
lead additional evidence for exhibiting the aforesaid document i.e. the
….3/p..
-- 2 of 3 --
/ 3 /
complete Statement of account of the defendants. Since the
application for taking of documents on record has been allowed and
the same is required to be proved after leading evidence as a natural
corollary. Accordingly, the request is allowed and the plaintiff is
granted only one opportunity to lead additional evidence subject to
costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with DLSA (Central).
5. Put up for payment of costs and for leading Additional PE on
26.11.2025.
(Mukesh Kumar Gupta)
District Judge(Commercial Court)-07
Central/Tis Hazari Courts/10.11.2025 (PK)
-- 3 of 3 --