Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM.) 256/24
M/s Polychem Industries Vs. M/s Chopra Stearates
04.05.2026
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Sh. Rohit Taneja, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
through VC.
(JAGDISH KUMAR)
District Judge, Comm. Court-01
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
04.05.2026
At second call
Present: Sh. Kunal Saini, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Rohit Taneja, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
through VC.
Arguments on application under Order XI Rule 1 (5)
CPC heard.
Put up for orders after lunch.
(JAGDISH KUMAR)
District Judge, Comm. Court-01
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
04.05.2026
After post lunch sessions
Present: Sh. Kunal Saini, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Rohit Taneja, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
through VC.
The facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed
the suit against the defendant by ascertain that the defendant
approached the plaintif in the year 2017 at plaintiff’s office for
purchasing of goods on credit basis which plaintiff supplied
during the year 2017-2021. Against the supplied goods, the
payment was due against the defendant which has not been paid
by the defendant and the present case has been filed accordingly.
-- 1 of 4 --
- 2-
The plaintiff asserted in the application being moved
under Order XI Rule 1 (5) r/w Section 151 CPC that defendant
had taken objections regarding the E-way bills and has denied
making the last payment made to the plaintiff, hence plaintiff
seeks leave of this Court to place on record the following
documents i.e. bank statement and E-way bills. The plaintiff
stated that these documents are essential for the adjudication of
the case.
The defendant has vehemently opposed the
application by submitting that plaintiff has not disclosed even a
single reason for not filing of these documents at the time of
filing of the suit. Rather, statement of truth filed by the plaintiff
stated that all the documents in power, possession, control or
custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the present
case have been annenxed with the plaint. It is stated that plaintiff
has not disclosed those documents earlier.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that these
documents are within the reach of the plaintiff but these were not
in possession of the plaintiff, hence could not be filed alongwith
the plaint.
I have considered the arguments of both the Ld.
Counsels and have perused the record carefully.
Ld. Counsel for defendant has also placed on record
the judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Civil
Appeal No. 5620 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (c) No. 13082 of
2021) Sudhir Kumar Vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that the party who wants to file the
documents in Commercial Court must have disclosed the cogent
reason for not filing the documents at the relevant state.
-- 2 of 4 --
- 3-
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has placed on record a
judgment i.e.
CS (Comm) 193/2023 titled as M/S MLI Logistics
India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SARR Freights Corporations & Anrs. Of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is not applicable here in the
present suit. In that case, the written statement was not filed by
the defendant and defendant had countered the documents in
their written statement which was filed subsequently by the
defendant. Whereas the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi is also on the original jurisdiction while trying
the commercial suit.
Here in the present case, the plaintiff has placed on
record the E-way bills and statement of account of the plaintiff.
These documents were very much in reach and accessible to the
plaintiff and same could have been filed alongwith the plaint.
The suit of the plaintiff is not of urgent nature. It is a recovery
suit and plaintiff may have filed the statement of account after
getting the same from the bank and could have also filed e-way
bills after taking out the print from the GST Department Portal
which has not been placed at the relevant time. The application
moved by the plaintiff does not disclose even a single reason for
not filing these documents on record at the relevant time. The
reason mentioned in the application is that since the defendant
has taken an objection regarding E-way bills and making last
payment, hence, plaintiff has filed these documents. The reasons
disclosed by the plaintiff for not placing on record the documents
is not sufficient reason. The scheme of the Commercial Court Act
is to disclose all the documents at the early stage. The parties
should disclose all the documents, either relevant or irrelevant at
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4-
the time of filing of the plaint or written statement and it cannot
be permitted to the parties to play hide and seek inter-se.
At this stage, the reliance has been placed upon the
judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in
CS (Comm.) 57/2017
titled as Saregama India Limited Vs. Zee Entertainment
Enterprises Limited wherein it has been observed :
“
In a commercial suit, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file
additional documents at any stage of the suit on the ground that
the same are in response to the case set up by the defendant in
the written statement. Permitting a party to file additional
documents at any stage would make a complete mockery of
Order XI of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits. The
whole object of the aforesaid provisions of the CPC pertaining to
the commercial suits would be defeated if a party is permitted to
file additional documents at any stage of the suit.”
In view of the averments and discussed as above,
application under Order XI Rule 1 (5) r/w Section 151 CPC
stands dismissed.
Put up for framing of issues on 27.07.2026.
(JAGDISH KUMAR)
District Judge, Comm. Court-01
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
04.05.2026
-- 4 of 4 --