Telangana High Court
Expert Industries Private Limited vs Moldtek Packaging Limited on 27 April, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1922 of 2021
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
1. The present civil revision petition is arising out of an order, dated 24.02.2020, passed in I.A.No.105 of 2020 in COS No.219 of 2017 by the learned Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff company, i.e., Mold Tek Packaging Limited has filed a suit against the sole defendant, i.e., Expert Industries Private Limited for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,68,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty eight lakhs only) along with interest @ 24% per annum as well as costs. During pendency of the suit, an interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.105 of 2020 was preferred under Order XI Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to receive the documents mentioned in the said interlocutory application and to mark them as evidence in support of the averments made in the 2 written statement by the petitioner/defendant. It was stated by the petitioner/defendant in the application that during the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, they have denied the counter claim of the petitioner/defendant and hence, there was specific denial of the counter claim of the petitioner/defendant, it has become necessary to file certain documents. It was also stated that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner/defendant for not filing documents along with the written statement and only because the documents were denied during cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, the documents are necessary and they are required to be filed in order to bring the lis to an end. The statutory provision governing the field does empower the Court to grant leave to receive such documents on record only upon the defendant establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the document in the written statement or counter claim. Undisputedly, the petitioner/defendant has not disclosed about all the documents in the written statement and he has stated the reason for not disclosing the same in the written statement as the necessity arose to file the document only after P.Ws.1 3 and 2 have denied the documents during their cross- examination.
3. Order XI Rule 1(10) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate division of High Courts Act, 2015, as amended, reads as under:-
"1. Disclosure and discovery of documents:- (1) to (9) xxxxx (10) Save and except for sub-rule (7)(c)(iii), defendant shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the defendant's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with the written statement or counter claim, save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the defendant establishing reasonable cause for non-
disclosure along with the written statement or counter- claim."
4. The aforesaid statutory provision of law does empower the Court to take documents on record. However, reasonable cause has to be established for non-disclosure of the documents in written statement or counter claim. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the Judgment delivered in the case of C.Rama Mohan Reddy v. Kusetty 4 Seshamma1 and Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad2 has rejected the application.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the entire purpose of establishing the commercial court comes to an end on account of search of dilatory tactics. Nothing prevented the petitioner/defendant to mention all the documents, which were necessary for counter claim and has no cogent reason has been assigned by the petitioner/defendant for producing the document at such a belated stage. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application which was filed at a belated stage. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
6. The suit was filed in the year 2017 and we are now in 2022. The trial Court has not been able to decide the matter for obvious reasons.
1 2013 (1) ALT 174 2 2009 (3) ALT 236 5
7. Resultantly, the civil revision petition preferred by the petitioner/defendant is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 27.04.2022 pln