Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) No. 602/25
ASHWANI KUMAR JAIN Vs. SAKSHI JAIN
10.02.2026
Present: Sh. Vipin Arora, Counsel for the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendant.
1. Matter is today fixed for orders on the miscellaneous
application U/o XI Rule 5(1) of the Commercial Courts Act r/w
Section 151 of CPC.
2. The order shall be passed during the course of the day.
(Devendra Kumar Sharma)
District Judge (Commercial Court-03)
Central/ THC/ Delhi/10.02.2026
At 3.35 PM
Present: None.
1. By way of application U/o XI Rule 5(1) of the
Commercial Courts Act r/w Section 151 of CPC, defendant seeks
to place on record the additional documents i.e. Photographs/Chat
on Whatsapp exchanged between the plaintiff and the husband of
the defendant regarding receipt of goods by the plaintiff from the
defendant
inter-alia on the ground that during the course of final
arguments, the defendant was directed to produce any document in
any form regarding receipt of the goods by the plaintiff from the
defendant and therefore, these documents are being filed to prove
that the goods have been received by the plaintiff from the
defendant.
2. It has been further averred that defence of the
defendant in the written statement is that "the plaintiff asked the
defendant to give the container of the goods imported from the
China, on approval basis for a period of 9-12 months to one year so
Contd...2/-
-- 1 of 11 --
::2::
that the plaintiff could send the samples to his customers and
further sell the said goods and it was undertaken by the plaintiff that
in case the samples will be approved by his customers, he will
purchase the said goods and will make the payment and otherwise
he will return the same to the defendant within a period of 9-12
months. It is further submitted that the plaintiff requested the
defendant and her husband Sh. Rahul Jain not to issue any
bills/invoice in respect of the goods sent to the godown of the
plaintiff and as such the defendant has agreed for same and
accordingly the defendant has sent containers consisting the goods
valuing Rs. 79,58,655/ - received from China to the godown of the
plaintiff and the plaintiff has acknowledged the receipts of the
goods from defendant and same is evident from the whatsapp chat/
messages exchanged between the plaintiff and husband of the
defendant. It is further submitted that after passing of one Year, the
plaintiff neither returned the goods to the defendant nor make
payment of the aforesaid goods as agreed".
3. It has been further averred that during the cross
examination of Plaintiff/PW-1, it is admitted by the plaintiff that
whatsapp chats were between him and the husband of the
defendant. It has been further submitted that these documents are
relevant and material for just adjudication of the present suit and
no prejudice would be caused to plaintiff if the application is
allowed and thus, it is prayed that defendant be permitted to place
the additional documents on record.
4. In the reply, the application is opposed on behalf of the
plaintiff on the ground that the same is not maintainable at this
stage and that all these documents were already in possession of the
Contd...3/-
-- 2 of 11 --
::3::
defendant at the time of filing of the present case and in order to
delay the trial of the present matter, the present application has been
filed. It has been further averred that the husband of the defendant
namely Rahul Jain is having another firm with name and style of
M/s Shree Padma Prabhu Impex which is working as on date and
the document of whatsapp sought to be placed on record pertain to
the year 2022 and the plaintiff is not having record of the same. It
has been further averred that the plaintiff has no liability of
Rs.79,58,655/- towards defendant as no step till today has been
taken by the defendant to recover the said alleged amount from the
plaintiff. It has been further alleged that the husband of the
defendant intentionally at this stage want to file all these documents
which were well in his possession from the day-1 and all this chat
pertains to the purchase of articles from either defendant's husband
firm namely M/s Shree Padma Prabhu Impex or from the present
defendant firm whose bill already filed by the plaintiff in the
present case. It has been further alleged that the defendant and her
husband without any invoice created a fake and concocted story. It
has been further averred that the defendant had already filed her
statement of truth and submitted that she has nothing in her
possession pertaining to the present matter. Hence, defendant is not
entitled for any relief and thus, it is prayed that application be
dismissed with heavy costs.
5. Heard. I have perused the record.
6. Admittedly the document which defendant seeks to
file now were in her power, possession, control and custody despite
which defendant failed to file the same on record. No plausible
explanation has been made for not filing the document alongwith
Contd...4/-
-- 3 of 11 --
::4::
the W.S. There was no direction by this Court at the time of final
arguments to file any additional documents.
7. As per Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, the plaintiff shall
not be allowed to rely upon documents which were in the
plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not
disclosed alongwith the plaint or within the extended period set
out save and except by leave of the Court and such leave shall be
granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause of
non-disclosure alongwith the plaint. In the instant case, the
documents in question were always in the plaintiff’s power,
possession, control and custody. Moreover, the present case is a
simplicitor case for money recovery.
8. In
Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar
G.B., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734, Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India expounded the significance of Order XI Rule 1 CPC in para
7, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-
“
7.3 It is true that Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC as applicable to
the commercial suits brought about a radical change and it
mandates the plaintiff to file a list of all documents,
photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control
or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint and a
procedure provided under Order XI Rule 1 is required to be
followed by the plaintiff and the defendant, when the suit is
the commercial suit. Order XI Rule 1, as applicable to
commercial suits reads as under:
…………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
…………………
Therefore, the declaration on oath shall be part of the plaint.
The plaintiff has to declare on oath that all documents in
its/his power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the
facts and circumstances of the proceedings, initiated by him/it
Contd...5/-
-- 4 of 11 --
::5::
have been disclosed and the copies thereof annexed with the
plaint, and that he does not have any other documents in his
power, possession, control or custody. Therefore as such it is
mandated by Order XI Rule 1 for the plaintiff to disclose and
produce all the documents in his power, possession, control or
custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the
proceedings.
7.4 However, the additional documents can be permitted to be
bought on record with the leave of the court as provided
in Order XI Rule 1 (4). Order XI Rule 1 (4) provides that in
case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on
additional documents as part of the above declaration on oath
[as provided under Order 11 Rule 1 (3)] and subject to grant
of such leave by Court, the plaintiff shall file such additional
documents in Court, within thirty days of filing the suit, along
with a declaration on oath that the plaintiff has produced all
documents in its power, possession, control or custody,
pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings
initiated by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not have
any other documents, in its power, possession, control or
custody.
7.5 Order XI Rule 1 (5) further provides that 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 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. Therefore on
combined reading of Order XI Rule 1 (4) read with Order XI
Rule 1 (5), it emerges that (i) in case of urgent filings the
plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents; (ii)
within thirty days of filing of the suit; (iii) making out a
reasonable cause for non disclosure along with plaint.
7.6 Therefore a further thirty days time is provided to the
plaintiff to place on record or file such additional documents
in court and a declaration on oath is required to be filed by the
plaintiff as was required as per Order XI Rule 1 (3) if for any
reasonable cause for non disclosure along with the plaint, the
documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession,
control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint.
Therefore plaintiff has to satisfy and establish a reasonable
cause for non disclosure along with plaint. However, at the
same time, the requirement of establishing the reasonable
cause for non disclosure of the documents along with the
plaint shall not be applicable if it is averred and it is the case
Contd...6/-
-- 5 of 11 --
::6::
of the plaintiff that those documents have been found
subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff’s power,
possession, control or custody at the time when the plaint was
filed. Therefore Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5)
applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with
respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power,
possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with
plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable
cause in non disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the
case where the additional documents sought to be
produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing
of the plaint.”
9. While laying the law for taking additional
documents on record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another vs. P.
Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 706 has held as under:-
9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice.
Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to
come in the way of the court while doing substantial
justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause
prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards
doing substantial justice rather than relying upon
procedural and technical violation. We should not forget
the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards
truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is
required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the
underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court
should take a lenient view when an application is made for
production of the documents under sub-rule (3).
10. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its
judgment titled as
Agva Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. Agfa-
Gevaert NV & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7914 has
held as under:-
12. The word used in Order XIII Rule 2 CPC (since
repealed) were “unless good cause is shown” and the
Supreme Court in the decision reported in Madanlal vs
Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535], noted the distinction
between “good cause” and “sufficient cause” and held that
Contd...7/-
-- 6 of 11 --
::7::
“good cause” requires a lower degree of proof as
compared to FAO (COMM) 222/2023 Page 7 of 10
“sufficient cause” and thus the power under Order XIII
Rule 2 CPC should be exercised liberally. Order XI Rule
1(5) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 uses the word
“reasonable cause”, which would require even a lower
degree of proof as compared to “good cause”.
13. Thus it is to be seen in the present case whether the
respondent had “reasonable cause” for non-disclosure of
documents (Annexure A to Annexure H) along with the
plaint...........
15. At the stage of granting leave to place on record
additional documents, the Court is not required to consider
the genuineness of the documents/additional documents,
the stage at which the genuineness of the documents is to
be considered is during the trial.
16. We may also note that the present application had been
filed when the suit is still at an initial stage and the issues
are yet to be framed. The plea of the appellants that along
with the plaint, the plaintiffs had filed appropriate
declaration that all documents in power, possession,
control or custody of the plaintiffs has been disclosed etc.
is misplaced. By placing on record the documents, the
respondents are neither setting up a new case nor
withdrawing any admission. By virtue of the additional
documents, plaintiffs are not setting up a case contrary to
what has been pleaded in the plaint.
11. Further, while disposing of the petition allowing the
documents to be taken on record, the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in its judgment titled as
Darrameks Hotels and Developers
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Brilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 4024 has held its observation in the relevant paras as
under:-
18. Undeniably, all such e-mails were already in
possession of the plaintiff. According to plaintiff, as
already noted above, there were around 500 e-mails which
were exchanged between the parties and out of such
voluminous exchange of e-mails, it, now, wants to place
on record 75 e-mails in order to show that the stand taken
by the defendant is incorrect.
............
Contd...8/-
-- 7 of 11 --
::8::
20. It is important to mention here that cause, which is to
be shown by the plaintiff, is “reasonable” and not
“sufficient or good” and use of word “reasonable” makes
the provision little less rigorous. Of course, the plaintiff
should have been careful and should have placed on
record these e-mails along with his plaint. Merely because,
there was voluminous exchange of e-mails between the
parties would not, generally speaking, absolve any such
party.
21. However, at the same time, the importance and
significance of these e-mails cannot be undermined. This
Court is also conscious of the fact that when the suit
reaches at the stage of evidence, these emails can always
be confronted during the cross-examination and since trial
has yet not begun, this Court does not see any real
prejudice, being caused to defendant by such belated
filing.
............
24. No doubt, timelines provided for any such suit,
involving a commercial dispute, are rigid and binding and
are required to be strictly followed and to that extent, there
cannot be any qualm with respect to observations
appearing in Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Fact, however,
remains that even if there is belated filing of any such
document, which was even under the control, possession
and custody of the plaintiff, the permission can be granted,
if the plaintiff is able to disclose a reasonable cause.
............
31. There cannot be any straightjacket formula as to when
any such application moved under Order XI CPC, seeking
to place on record additional document, is to be allowed
and when to be dismissed. This has to be ascertained after
evaluating factual matrix of any such given case, the stand
taken in the pleadings, the nature of the document and its
relevancy and reason assigned for belated filing.
12. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its
judgment titled as
Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. VLCC Personal Care
Ltd., CM (M) 2205/2024, CM APPL.18005/2024 decided by Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi on 05.07.2024 has held as under:-
32. It is noted from the record, that the respondent in its
statement of truth appended with the plaint, has
categorically deposed “I do not have any other document
in my power, possession, control or custody”.
Contd...9/-
-- 8 of 11 --
::9::
33. Further, in view of paragraph 9 of the plaint, no
application has been filed to seek extension of time to
place the additional documents. Also, the respondent has
not pleaded in its application that the additional
documents were not in its power, possession, control or
custody earlier and thus were not produced along with the
suit. To the contrary, the respondent has claimed vide its
application to place additional documents on record that
invoices had to be obtained from CFAs in their respective
states, hence were not in possession of the respondent. 34.
Noticeably, the submission of the respondent does not
appear to be convincing since while preparing the plaint,
the respondent would have checked its records as averred
in the plaint that petitioner had made a payment of Rs.
2,81,76,502/- and the outstanding amount that remained to
be paid by the petitioner amounted to Rs.53,83,366/-
meaning thereby, the respondent would have relied upon
its statement of account to ascertain the amount which
remained unpaid and was required to be recovered from
the petitioner. Thus, the statement of the account would
have contained all the details of the paid / unpaid invoices
and respondent could have easily collected the invoices
and other documents before filing the suit. It is also not
the case of the respondent that there was an urgency in
filing the suit, which prevented it from procuring the
relevant documents from CFAs to be filed alongwith the
suit. As noticed above, in respect of the two statements of
accounts purported to be filed as additional documents are
not addressed in the application at all. Hence, there is
merit in the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is error in exercising its jurisdiction by
the learned Trial Court, warranting supervisory correction
by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
35. Viewed thus, the impugned order is entirely against the
compliance of provision under Order XI Rule 5 CPC and
spirit of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which is
accordingly set aside and the documents brought on record
vide application of the respondent under Order XI Rule
1(5) CPC are directed to be taken off the record.
13. Thus, in sum and substance, the judgments discussed
hereinabove makes it clear that filing of additional documents in
a commercial suit is not completely barred after filing of the
plaint. The only rider is that if the document was not in power
Contd...10/-
-- 9 of 11 --
::10::
and possession of the parties or that suit is at initial stage and no
prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties, either of the
parties may be allowed to place on record the additional
documents.
14. Adverting back to the facts of present case, it is not
the case of applicant/defendant that he discovered these
additional documents subsequent to filing of the W.S. The plea
of applicant is that these documents are being filed pursuant to
the directions given by the Court during the course of final
arguments to prove the receipt of goods by the plaintiff from the
defendant. However, there was no such direction by this Court.
The husband of the defendant has never appeared in the witness
box though it has come in the testimony of DW1 that no
documents regarding sale of goods has been placed on record and
DW1 by voluntary statement has stated that mainly husband of
DW1 was running the business. Admittedly, the
photographs/whatsapp chat were in the possession and control of
the applicant/defendant's husband at the time of filing of the W.S.
In absence of any reasonable cause for not filing of these
additional documents at the time of filing of W.S., it appear that
the present application has been filed at the stage of final
arguments in order to delay the trial of the present case as well as
without any merit. Otherwise also, mere filing of the documents
on the record does not ipso facto prove the defense of the
defendant regarding the delivery of the goods/container as
claimed on behalf of the defendant since the beginning of the
pleadings.
Contd...11/-
-- 10 of 11 --
::11::
15. Therefore, the present application being devoid of
any merit, stands dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be
deposited with DLSA, Central District.
16. Be put up for final arguments on 27.02.2026.
(Devendra Kumar Sharma)
District Judge (Commercial Court-03)
Central/ THC/ Delhi/10.02.2026
-- 11 of 11 --