Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) No. 382/24
Sachin Kumar Rana (Prop.)
Vs.
Arien Global Lifestyle P. Ltd.
16.02.2026
Present: Shri Vaibhav Verma, Shri Abhishek Negi and Shri Varun
Kumar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Divya, Ld. Counsel for defendant (through VC).
Reply to application not filed despite getting sufficient time to
file reply. However, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued application
without filing any formal reply. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the
plaintiff has filed one application under Order 11 (1) Rule 5 CPC to file
additional document on record, which was within the knowledge of newly
substituted AR and could not be placed on record. It is further argued that
document / e-mail is duly supporting by certificate under Section 63 of BSA
and this document is material for the proper adjudication of this case and
same may be taken on record.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant has opposed this
application on the ground that the plaintiff has already filed statement of
truth thereby stating that he has already filed all documents on record, which
were within his power and possession, whereas filing of new document
subsequently shows that the plaintiff has filed a false statement of truth and
all documents were not placed on record. Ld. Counsel for defendant has
further argued that this application is just a delay tactic and same is liable to
be dismissed.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
Admittedly, the plaintiff was granted 15 days time to file
replication vide order dated 06.01.2026, in failure opportunity to file the
same was supposed to be closed without any further order. However, the
plaintiff has filed replication and affidavit of A/D of documents beyond this
period and opportunity of the plaintiff has already been closed after 15 days.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Admittedly, issues in this case have already been framed on
06.01.2026 and after case management hearing, case was fixed for PE on
03.02.2026, 04.02.2026 and 05.02.2026 and for DE on 16.02.2026,
17.02.2026 and 18.02.2026. However, the plaintiff has failed to lead PE
despite granting 3 dates for PE and rather, on 03.02.2026, he moved
application for substitution of AR, which was allowed and date already fixed
on 04.02.2026 cancelled at joint request. Again, on 05.02.2026, no PW was
present and the plaintiff filed rejoinder to WS alongwith affidavit of
admission-denial of documents and application U/o 11 Rule 5 CPC with
affidavit and list of witnesses. However, the plaintiff has not filed any
application for seeking permission to file replication and affidavit for A/D of
documents with delay, accordingly, replication and affidavit of A/D of
documents cannot be taken on record, hence rejected.
Plaintiff has filed application u/o 11 Rule 5 CPC for filing of
additional documents i.e. e-mail with affidavit u/s 63 of BSA, 2023. Though
no particular explanation has been tendered by the plaintiff in application for
not filing of this document after furnishing statement of truth, yet document
will be helpful for the proper adjudication of this case, accordingly, same is
taken on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the
defendant. The affidavit and list of witnesses are also taken on record.
Put up on 18.02.2026. The date already fixed i.e. 17.02.2026
cancelled at joint request.
(Devender Kumar)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
16.02.2026
-- 2 of 2 --