Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ostuka Chemical India Pvt Ltd vs Trans Engineers India Pvt Ltd on 12 January, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CR-5832-2024 (O&M)
Ostuka Chemicals (India) Private Limited ......Petitioner
Vs.
Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent
2. CR-5968-2024 (O&M)
Ostuka Chemicals (India) Private Limited ......Petitioner
Vs.
Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent
Reserved on : 06.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2026
Date of Uploading : 19.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present : Mr. Aman Bahri, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Rohit Mahajan, Advocate, (through V.C) and
Mr. Shubham Pathania, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in both cases).
Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate,
Ms. Darika Sikka, Advocate,
Mr. Vishal Hablani, Advocate, and
Ms. Deekshi Pokriyal, Advocate, (through V.C)
for the respondent(s) (in both cases)
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. Since both the revision petitions i.e. CR-5832-2024 and CR- 5968-2024, are interconnected, therefore, both the revision petitions are decided by this common judgment.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -2-
CR-5968-2024 (O&M)
2. Challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, exercising jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, whereby two applications, i.e. application seeking permission to file replication along with additional documents and application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') for rectification/modification of the application seeking leave to file replication moved on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff were allowed.
CR-5832-2024 (O&M)
3. Challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, exercising jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, whereby application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) and Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4. Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings, are that respondent- Trans Engineers India Private Limited is in the business of exporting, manufacturing, supplying quality and cost effective equipments and project services in India and is extensively known to inter alia provide turnkey VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -3- solutions, detail engineering, electrical and instrumentation, installation, testing and commissioning of such projects.
5. Petitioner-Otsuka Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in the year 2006 with an object to produce a chemical compound namely "GCLE". Petitioner with the intent of expanding "GCLE" facilities and with the object to set up a GCLE manufacturing facility in India, approached the respondent/plaintiff in the year 2015 for setting up of a fully automatic DCS controlled plant at Kotpuli, Rajasthan (India).
6. Pursuant to several negotiations/discussions, the petitioner vide letter of intent dated 21.04.2016 engaged the respondent for consultancy job (for all disciplines) for the GCLE Expansion Project ("the Project") against the agreed amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores).
7. That upon the successful completion of the consultancy job of the Project by the respondent, the petitioner vide e-mail dated 02.05.2016, by way of a Letter of Intent ("LOI") engaged respondent for manufacture, supply and installation of civil and structural work for expansion of a plant for "GCLE" production (a chemical compound) ("Project") against a total consideration of Rs.28,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Crores).
8. On 27.05.2016, petitioner issued a Purchase Order to the respondent for Rs.28,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Crores), pursuant to the Letter of Intent. (Purchase Order-1).
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -4-
9. On 25.07.2017, respondent completed the work as per the Purchase Order, including various modifications/variations required in the interest of the Project.
10. On 17.01.2018, petitioner issued another Purchase Order to the respondent for manufacturing, supply, and installation of additional work for centrifuges area C and S Process structural steel and civil work. This Purchase Order was for an amount of Rs.1,10,07,912.58/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakh Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve and Fifty Eight Paise). (Purchase Order-2).
11. On 15.02.2018, petitioner paid Rs.28,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Crores) to the respondent, as initially agreed under the Purchase Order.
12. On 21.02.2018 and 22.02.2018, respondent raised additional invoices on the petitioner, amounting to Rs.3,79,51,747/- (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Nine Lakh Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Seven) in relation to Purchase Order-1. These invoices were for the additional work done by the respondent due to various variations/modifications/additions in the scope of work.
13. On 25.02.2018, petitioner admitted its liability to pay Rs.4,15,41,420/- (Rupees Four Crore Fifteen Lakh Forty One Thousand Four Hundred Twenty) to the respondent for the additional work, against the total sum of Rs.4,89,59,659.58/- (Rupees Four Crore Eighty Nine Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Nine and Fifty Eight Paise) VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -5- (Rs.3,79,51,747/- under Purchase Order-1 and Rs.1,10,07,912.58 under Purchase Order-2).
14. On 01.09.2018, respondent issued the demand notice to the petitioner under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for claiming the outstanding dues.
15. On 10.09.2018, petitioner responded to the respondent's demand notice, refuting respondent's claim for the outstanding dues.
16. On 15.09.2018, respondent filed a summary suit before the Gurgaon District Court to recover Rs.5,31,52,576/- (Rupees Five Crore Thirty One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Six) from the petitioner in relation to the additional work. This suit came to be registered as CS No.37-76 of 2018. The break-up of the amount is as follows:-
a. Principal amount : Rs.4,15,41,420/-.
b. GST on the outstanding amount @18% :
Rs.74,77,455.60/-.
C. Interest @ 18% from 25.02.2018 till 15.08.2018 :
Rs.41,33,701/-.
17. On 16.11.2018, petitioner filed an application for return of the plaint and for it to be presented before the Special Commercial Court in Gurugram ("Commercial Court").
18. On 28.11.2018, petitioner filed an application for grant of leave to defend the summary suit filed by the respondent. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -6-
19. On 04.04.2019, respondent filed its reply to the petitioner's application for grant of leave to defend and sought an adjournment to file reply to petitioner's application for return of plaint.
20. Thereafter, after seeking four adjournments, on 20.01.2020, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff made a statement on oath to the effect that he does not want to file reply to the application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC moved on 16.11.2018 on behalf of the petitioner/defendant and only wants to raise the arguments directly on it. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 13.02.2020 for arguments.
21. It would be relevant here to reproduce order dated 13.02.2020, which reads as under:-
"Today the case was fixed for arguments and consideration on an application moved under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for return of plaint filed by the applicant/defendant company. Certain arguments and submission by both counsels have been submitted.
However, at this stage, Sh. Tarang Aggarwal, learned counsel for plaintiff company has made his statement to the effect that in view of the objections and grounds taken by the defendant company in its application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the plaint may be returned with liberty to file the plaint before the Appropriate Competent Court as per law. A separate statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff company to this effect recorded.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -7- Keeping in view of the afore-said statement, so made by the learned counsel for plaintiff company and also in view of the contents of the present application, this Court is of the considered opinion that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the matter in dispute is a commercial dispute and as per the provisions of "The Commercial Court Act, 2015", the designated Special Commercial Court is having jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide such kind of commercial dispute. Therefore, the actual jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the matter, which is a commercial dispute among the parties to the suit, lies with the designated Special Commercial Court. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstance, the plaint in original stands returned under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC. In view of the afore-said observation, the application in hand stands disposed off accordingly.
Despite proper intimation regarding return of present plaint in compliance of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10-A CPC, the plaintiff company has not filed any appropriate application for fixing a date for appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its return. Therefore, in these circumstances, no date could be fixed for appearance before the Competent Court wherein plaint is to be filed on its return. Accordingly, the plaintiff company is granted 10 days time from today to submit the certified copies of plaint and attached documents for the purpose of proper consignment. Reader & Ahlmad attached to this Court are also directed to hand over the plaint in original along VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -8- with attached documents to the plaintiff company or its Authorized Representative or agent, against proper receipt and identification as per rules and thereafter, also made relevant entries in the prescribed Register of Return of Documents in this regard. Reader of this Court is further directed to prepare the brief statement and details of present case as per the provisions of Rule 10 (2) of Order VII CPC and get checked and verified by the Court. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
A copy of this order be given to both the parties to this suit, or their counsel, if so requested."
22. A perusal of the above referred to order dated 13.02.2020 shows that plaint in original was returned under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
23. On 07.01.2022, respondent filed the same summary suit before the Commercial Court, which came to be registered as CS No.5 of 2022. On the same date, the matter got listed and the Commercial Court observed that the parties had not attempted to resolve the dispute by way of mediation in terms of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.
24. On 15.02.2022, petitioner appeared before the Commercial Court for the first time after service.
25. On 10.03.2022, petitioner filed an application, seeking leave to defend the summary suit. Learned Commercial Court referred the case to mediation for settlement.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -9-
26. On 04.07.2022, Mediation report received reflecting that the mediation was unsuccessful. Learned Commercial Court directed the respondent to file reply to petitioner's application for leave to defend.
27. On 29.07.2022, respondent filed reply to the petitioner's application for leave to defend.
28. On 17.10.2022, petitioner filed an application for taking on record the documents attached with its application for leave to defend.
29. On 19.01.2023, during the hearing of the application seeking leave to defend, learned counsel for the respondent gave no objection to the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend. Resultantly, the summary suit was converted into a regular commercial recovery suit.
30. On 15.02.2023, petitioner filed written statement along with certain documents in the commercial suit and an affidavit of admission and denial of documents. Learned Commercial Court directed the respondent to file its affidavit of admissions and denial.
31. On 31.05.2023, respondent filed its replication, along with supporting documents, in response to the petitioner's written statement along with an application seeking leave to file replication.
32. On 04.08.2023, petitioner filed its reply in response to the respondent's replication application.
33. On 01.09.2023, the respondent filed an application for rectification of the replication application and an affidavit of admission and VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -10- denial of documents. By way of the rectification application, the respondent filed a Statement of Truth in support of its replication application.
34. On 20.01.2024, respondent filed an application under Rule 1(c)
(ii) and Rule 5 of Order XI and Section 151 of the CPC for placing on record additional documents, which were filed along with replication. ("Application for Additional Documents"). Learned Commercial Court directed the petitioner to file reply to the Application for Additional Documents.
35. On 12.04.2024, the petitioner filed its reply to respondent's application for Additional Documents.
36. On 16.08.2024, learned Commercial Court passed two orders:-
a) Allowed two applications filed by respondent/plaintiff.
One seeking leave to file replication along with additional documents and another filed under Section 151 CPC for rectification of the application seeking leave to file replication. (Order No.1).
b) Application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) and Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed. (Order No.2).
37. The Commercial Court also passed an order on the same date, directing the parties to file affidavit of admission and denial on the next date.
38. Petitioner filed two Civil Revision Petitions i.e. CR-5832-2024 and CR-5968-2024, before this Court, against both orders of the Commercial Court.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -11-
a) CR-5968-2024, challenging order dated 16.08.2024
passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, Haryana, whereby two applications, i.e. one seeking leave to file replication along with additional documents and another application filed under Section 151 CPC for rectification/ modifiction of the application seeking leave to file replication moved on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff were allowed.
b) CR-5832-2024, challenging order dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, Haryana, whereby application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) and Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION/ARGUMENTS RAISED BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ON MAINTAINABILITY OF REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:-
39. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent raised following preliminary objections/arguments:-
40. That under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a party is barred from filing civil revision petition against an interlocutory order of the Commercial Court. And the jurisdiction to entertain petitions VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -12-
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India of High Court is to be exercised very sparingly and more sparingly with respect to orders in such suits which under CPC are revisable and that remedy has been taken away by a subsequent legislation. i.e. the Commercial Court Act.
41. Further, that High Court can only exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of orders that are patently lacking inherent jurisdiction and in cases of jurisdictional error or where there is manifest error on the face of the record and the impugned orders passed by the Special Commercial Court, Gurugram do not lack inherent jurisdiction and there is no manifest error on the face of the record, therefore, there are no valid grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
42. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
(a) Black Diamonds Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Black Diamonds Motors Pvt. Ltd., CM(M) 132/2021;
(b) Black Diamonds Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Black Diamonds Motors Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) 17030-
17031/2021;
(c) Ashok Kumar Puri Vs. S. Suncon Realtors Pvt. Ltd, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5220.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -13-
REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS RAISED BY LEARNED SENIOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
43. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 relates to entertainment of civil revision petitions against interlocutory orders passed by the learned Commercial Courts. However, the constitutional power vested in this Court by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by any statute legislated by the Parliament. The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been explained, especially with reference to the Bar of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, in the following judgments:-
(a) Black Diamonds Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Black Diamonds Motors Pvt. Ltd., CM(M) 132/2021 (Delhi High Court);
(b) State of Gujarat Vs. Union of India, Special Civil Application No.737 of 2018;
(Gujarat High Court);
(c) Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mount Distilleries Ltd., Law Finder Doc ID : 2739490;
(Sikkim High Court)
(d) P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy Vs. M/s Sreepada Real Estate & Developers Hyderabad and another, 2024 SCC Online AP 4102.
(Andhra Pradesh High Court) VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -14-
44. He further contends that in view of these judgments, the present revision petitions are maintainable against the interlocutory orders passed by learned Commercial Court, however, the said power is to be exercised sparingly and in cases where grave injustice would be occasioned if the said power is not exercised.
45. I have heard learned Senior counsels for the parties and perused both files of these cases with their able assistance.
46. Since learned Senior counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because of Bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to file civil revision petition against interlocutory order of Commercial Court, the present revision petitions would be decided in following two parts:-
A. Decision on Maintainability, entertainability and interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
B. Decision on the impugned orders in both the revision petitions as to whether any interference is required as per power vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -15-
A. DECISION ON MAINTAINABILITY, ENTERTAINABILITY
AND INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
47. The question which is first to be decided by this Court is as to whether Bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, can curtail the constitutional power vested in this Court by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
48. Before proceeding further to decide this question, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
49. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act reads as under:-
"8. Bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction, and any such challenge, subject to the provisions of section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court."
50. A bare reading of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, as reproduced above, shows that no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction, and any such challenge, VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -16- subject to the provisions of Section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court.
51. Further it starts with Notwithstanding clause (Non Obstante) which is a provision in legislation that allows a law to operate despite certain other legal rules, rights or principles that might otherwise conflict with it. Such clauses are used to assert legislative supremacy and to prevent courts from invalidating or limiting the effect of the statute based on conflicting laws or rights. In common law jurisdictions, a Notwithstanding clause typically uses language such as "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act" or "Notwithstanding any law to the contrary". It signals a clear legislative intent that the provision should take precedence over any inconsistent statutory, common law, or constitutional provisions.
52. Therefore, Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act Bars entertainment of civil revision application or petition against any interlocutory order of Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction.
53. Now coming to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is reproduced as under:-
"227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.--(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may--VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -17-
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces."
54. Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides for the power of superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.
SCOPE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
55. The power of general superintendence conferred by Article 227 involves a duty on the part of the High Court to keep all courts and tribunals VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -18- within its territorial jurisdiction "within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner". It is now settled that this power is atleast as wide as that under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. This means that the High Court can interfere in following cases:-
(a) Erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction.
(b) Refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
(c) Error of law apparent on the face of the record.
(d) Violation of the principles of natural justice.
(e) Fraud on the part of the prosecutor.
(f) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority, or discretion.
(g) Perverse finding, e.g., where it is based on no material whatsoever.
(h) Deciding contrary to the law laid down by the High Court or refusal to comply with the decision of the High Court.
(i) A patent or flagrant error in procedure.
(j) Order resulting in manifest injustice.
(k) Interference will be justified in cases when the High Court finds that a party is misusing the judicial process and trial court(s) is aiding and abetting the same. In such cases, the High Court cannot remain a silent spectator VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -19-
and allow the abuse of judicial norms and processes. It was held that it is the duty of the High Court to see that the purity of justice, dignity of the judicial institution is restored and preserved.
(l) Where the trial court or tribunal takes a decision in a manner not authorised or warranted by the relevant law, such determination amounts to one without jurisdiction. The challenge thus being made on the ground of jurisdictional error, interference will be made.
(m) If the order suffers from basic illegality or was passed in contravention of the established principles of law, interference under this article is made, especially when grave injustice has been done to the party. Power can be exercised even though an alternative remedy is available.
(n) Where the conclusion of the tribunal or the lower court is based on inadmissible evidence or when the lower court has ignored material piece of evidence from the purview of consideration or the conclusion is based upon an error of law or the tribunal itself has no jurisdiction or when the conclusion is based on "no evidence", the High Court is entitled to interfere.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -20-
(o) In cases where there is grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, the court would exercise jurisdiction under this article.
(p) Where there is flagrant violation of law as laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court will interfere
(q) The High Court can interfere with a tribunal's decision if there is an error in its finding in respect of jurisdictional fact.
(r) Where an order is obtained from a tribunal by playing fraud.
56. Now the question would arise as to whether the Bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act would be applicable to the power of superintendence of High Court provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION ON POWER OF SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OVER ALL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
57. The power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction is judicial as well as administrative. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -21-
58. Larger Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat etc. Vs. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela (dead) his legal representatives and others, 1968 SCC Online SC 102 held that Article 227 of the Constitution gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the all courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law.
59. Power under this Article can also be exercised suo moto, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramanand, (1972) 1 SCC 898.
60. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Umaji Keshao Meshram and others Vs. Radhikabai and another, 1986 (Sup) SCC 401 held as under:-
"90. The fact that Article 225 makes the jurisdiction and powers of the existing High Courts subject to a law of the appropriate Legislature does not mean that the jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 cannot come within the scope of Article 225. A law made by an appropriate Legislature can amend another law enacted by it but it cannot amend or affect the provisions of the Constitution, and as Articles 226, 227 and 228 are not made subject to any law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures, the powers conferred by these three Articles cannot be limited, abridged or taken away by any Legislature. They can only be affected by amending the Constitution.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -22-
XXX XXX XXX XXX
102. It is equally well-settled in law that a proceeding under Article 227 is not an original proceeding. In this connection, we need to refer to only two decisions of this Court. In Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Tahel Ramnand & Ors., 1973(1) SCR 185.
"Article 227 of the Constitution no doubt does not confer on the High Court power similar to that of an ordinary Court of appeal. The material part of this Article substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, except that the power of superintendence has been extended by this Article to Tribunals as well. Section 107 according to preponderance of judicial opinion clothed the High Courts with a power of judicial superintendence apart from and independently of the provisions of the other laws conferring on them revisional jurisdiction. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors : see Waryam Singh v. Amar Nath, (1954) SCR 565. Under Article 226 of the Constitution it may in this connection be pointed out the High Court does not hear an appeal or a revision : that Court is moved to interfere after bringing before itself the record of a case decided by or pending before a Court, a Tribunal or an authority, within its jurisdiction."VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -23- The origin and nature of the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Courts by Article 227 was thus stated by this Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath 1954 SCR 565.
61. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Jetha Bai and Sons Vs. M/s Sunderdas Rathenai, 1988 (1) SCC 722 held as under:-
"17. Incidentally, we may also point out that the Legislature has not taken away and indeed it cannot take away the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution over all courts and tribunals which are within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercise its jurisdiction.
62. In Achutananda Baidya vs Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Ors., 1997 (5) SCC 76, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that High Court can interfere under this Article in cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the face of the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, patent error of procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material or resulting in manifest injustice. Power to control should also be exercised to protect judicial officers from external interference that may sometimes appears overpowering to them and to support them to discharge their duties fearlessly. The power also includes inter alia to guide, advise and encourage VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -24- judges of trial courts/district courts to exercise their powers, discharge their duties and perform their functions independently, fearlessly and objectively.
63. Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others, 1997 (3) SCC 261, held that power vested in the High Court under Article 227 is part of basic structure of the Constitution. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. Therefore, the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under this Article cannot be ousted by any statutory or even by Constitutional provision.
Relevant paras of L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) are reproduced as under:-
"79. The legitimacy of the power of Courts within constitutional democracies to review legislative action has been questioned since the time it was first conceived. The Constitution of India, being alive to such criticism, has, while conferring such power upon the higher judiciary, incorporated important safeguards. An analysis of the manner in which the Framers of our Constitution incorporated provisions relating to the judiciary would indicate that they were very greatly concerned with securing the independence of the judiciary. These attempts were directed at ensuring that the judiciary would be capable of effectively discharging its wide powers of judicial review. While the Constitution VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -25- confers the power to strike down laws upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court, it also contains elaborate provisions dealing with the tenure, salaries, allowances, retirement age of Judges as well as the mechanism for selecting Judges to the superior courts. The inclusion of such elaborate provisions appears to have been occasioned by the belief that, armed by such provisions, the superior courts would be insulated from any executive or legislative attempts to interfere with the making of their decisions. The Judges of the superior courts have been entrusted with the task of upholding the Constitution and to this end, have been conferred the power to interpret it. It is they who have to ensure that the balance of power envisaged by the Constitution is maintained and that the legislature and the executive do not, in the discharge of their functions, transgress constitutional limitations. It is equally their duty of oversee that the judicial decisions rendered by those who man the subordinate courts and tribunals do not fall foul of strict standards of legal correctness and judicial independence. The constitutional safeguards which ensure the independence of the Judges of the superior judiciary, are not available to the Judges of the subordinate judiciary or to those who man Tribunals created by ordinary legislations. Consequently, Judges of the latter category can never be considered full and effective substitutes for the superior judiciary in discharging the function of constitutional interpretation. We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -26- is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded.
80. We also hold that the power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all Courts and Tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is because a situation where the High Courts are divested of all other judicial functions apart from that of constitutional interpretation, is equally to be avoided.
81. However, it is important to emphasise that though the subordinate judiciary or Tribunals created under ordinary legislations cannot exercise the power of judicial review of legislative action to the exclusion of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, there is no constitutional prohibition against their performing a supplemental - as opposed to a substitutional - role in this respect. That such a situation is contemplated within the constitutional scheme becomes evident when one analyses clause (3) of Article 32 of the Constitution which reads as under :
"32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. -
(1) ..
(2) ... ... ...
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -27-
court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)." (Emphasis supplied)
82. If the power under Article 32 of the Constitution, which has been described as the "heart" and "soul" of the Constitution, can be additionally conferred upon "any other court", there is no reason why the same situation cannot subsist in respect of the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. So long as the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226/227 and that of this Court under Article 32 is retained, there is no reason why the power to test the validity of legislations against the provisions of the Constitution cannot be conferred upon Administrative Tribunals created under the Act or upon Tribunals created under Article 323B of the Constitution. It is to be remembered that, apart from the authorisation that flows from Articles 323A and 323B, both Parliament and the State Legislatures possess legislative competence to effect changes in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This power is available to Parliament under Entries 77, 78, 79 and 95 of List I and to the State Legislatures under Entry 65 of List II; Entry 46 of List III can also be availed of both by Parliament and the State Legislatures for this purpose.
83. There are pressing reasons why we are anxious to preserve the conferment of such a power on these Tribunals. When the Framers of our Constitution bestowed the powers of judicial review of legislative action upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court, they VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -28- ensured that other constitutional safeguards were created to assist them in effectively discharging this onerous burden. The expectation was that this power would be required to be used only occasionally. However, in the five decades that have ensued since Independence, the quantity of litigation before the High Courts has exploded in an unprecedented manner. The decision in Sampath Kumar's case was rendered against such a backdrop. We are conscious of the fact that when a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sampath Kumar's case adopted the theory of alternative institutional mechanisms, it was attempting to remedy an alarming practical situation and the approach selected by it appeared to be most appropriate to meet the exigencies of the time. Nearly a decade later, we are now in a position to review the theoretical and practical results that have arisen as a consequence of the adoption of such an approach."
64. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in A. Venkataubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan, (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 695 held as under:-
"22. Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court it is a well recognised principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional remedy. Learned VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -29- single Judge need not have entertained the revision petition at all and the party affected by the interim ex- parte order should have been directed to resort to one of the other remedies. Be that as it may, now it is idle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the revision petition."
65. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Koyilerian Janki and others Vs. Rent Controller (Munsiff), Cannanore and others, (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406 held as under:-
"4. Further we are in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that it was not appropriate for the High Court to have interfered with the order passed by the District Judge in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The proceedings in the present case arose under a special Act governing the landlord and tenant relationship and disputes. The Act does not provide any second appeal or revision to the High Court. The purpose behind for not providing such remedy is to give finality to the order passed under the Act. The power under Article 227 is exercisable where it is found by the High Court that due to a certain grave error an injustice has been caused to a party. For this reason also, the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside."
66. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C. Krishnan, 2001(6) SCC 569 held as under:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -30- "6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debuts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."
67. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., 2001(8) SCC 97 held as under:-
"D. Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Power of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India when be exercised :-
(1) Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -31- (2) High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.
(3) High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.
(4) Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors.
(5) High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1598, 1954 SCR 565 and 1972 RCR (Rent) 565 relied."
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -32-
not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.
7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd v. Ramtahel Ramanand and others, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1598 in para 12 has stated that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors. Reference also has been made in this regard to the case Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another, 1954 SCR 565. This court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another, 1972 RCR (Rent) 565 (Bombay) has observed that the power of superintendence under Article 227 VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -33- cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the impugned order."
68. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dhanwant Singh, 2004 (13) SCC 331 held as under:-
"4. In so far as the statutes providing for finality of the order or decision passed or rendered in the accordance with the provisions of the statutes are concerned. it may be stated that it is well settled that such a statutory provision cannot take away the constitutional right given by Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In this connection, reference may be made to what was observed in para 10 of Lila Vati v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 521. After referring to the provisions in Sections 5 and 6 of the concerned Act stating that the determination in question by the State Government shall be conclusive evidence of the declaration so made, it was stated that it did not mean that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or on appeal had been impaired. It was also pointed out that in a proper case these Courts in the exercise of their special jurisdiction under the Constitution have the power to determine how far the VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -34- provisions of the statutes have or have not been complied with an arriving at the determination in question."
69. In Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vs. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58 and State of W.B. Vs. Samar Kumar Sarkar, (2009) 15 SCC 444, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that power of superintendence under Article 227 is not as exclusive as the power conferred under Article 226. Normally, the exercise of power is only for the purpose of considering whether there is an error of jurisdiction of the trial court(s) or tribunal(s) subject to its superintendence. In exercise of power under Article 227, the High Court cannot withdraw a case from the Administrative Tribunal and decide the case by itself. When issues of law are wrongly decided, power could be invoked. Power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very wide and discretionary in nature. While exercising the said jurisdiction, the High Court also acts as a court of equity and hence, it is within the power and duty of the High Court to ensure that the power of superintendence advances the ends of justice and uproot injustice. Court can also take into account the balancing of interests and equities and can mould relief considering the facts of the case. When parties seek equitable relief under Article 227, the court can also insist that they must also do equity.
70. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors., 2019(9) SCC 538 held as under:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -35- "13. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before Civil Courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil procedure and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High court. This is why, a 3 member Bench of this court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675, pointed out in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 that "orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts".
14. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 especially in a VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -36- case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself."
71. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and Anr., (2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 320 held that it is well-settled legal position that the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the trial courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.
72. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Puri Investments Vs. M/s Young Friends And Co. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 283 held as under:-
"13. There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. In our view, the High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is impermissible. The finding of the High Court that the appellate forum's decision was perverse and the manner in which such finding was arrived at was itself perverse."
73. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 181 held as under:-
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -37- primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:-
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -38- to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."
74. Now coming to the judgments relied upon by learned Senior counsels on both side rendered by Delhi High Court, Gujrat High Court and Sikkim High Court, wherein it has also been consistently held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised very VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -39- sparingly with great circumspection and not to be exercised merely to correct errors of law.
CONCLUSION
75. Now to conclude as to whether Bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, on entertainment of civil revision application or petition would be applicable on the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as discussed above. This Court concludes as under:-
(i) Bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act on entertainment of civil revision application or petition would not be applicable in case of filing of civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction.
(ii) Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court has power to entertain civil revision application or petition against any interlocutory order of the Commercial Court, therefore, revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against interlocutory order of the Commercial Court is maintainable and once it is maintainable, it is entertainable also. And after entertaining it only, it can VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -40-
be decided as to whether any interference is required or not?
(iii) Power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction is very wide and discretionary in nature.
(iv) Jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be ousted by any statutory provision.
(v) The power vested in the High Court under Article 227 is part of basic structure of the Constitution.
(vi) The powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be limited, abridged or taken away by any Legislature.
(vii) The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.
(viii) High Court cannot test the legality of the order of the courts and tribunals through the lens of an appellate body but should test the same as a supervisory Court in VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -41- adjudicating the application/petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(ix) Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and this jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature.
(x) Statutory provision cannot take away the constitutional right given by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(xi) The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution conferred upon every High Court over all the courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction is very wide and discretionary in nature. It can be exercised ex debito justitia, i.e., to meet the ends of justice.
(xii) Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is discretionary and equitable and is required to be exercised in the larger interest of justice. It is, therefore, within the power and also the duty of the court to ensure that power of superintendence must "advance the ends of justice and uproot injustice".
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -42-
(xiii) The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised by the court in its discretion and cannot be claimed of as right by any party.
(xiv) The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is an extraordinary power, to be used most sparingly, and the High Court would ordinarily refuse to exercise this power where some other adequate remedy is available.
(xv) The rule of "alternative remedy" is only a consideration for the exercise of discretion and does not exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court in exceptional cases. (xvi) The High Court cannot in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, convert itself into a court of appeal.
76. In view of the above conclusion, legislation cannot take away the power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all the courts and tribunals, which are within the territories in relation to which, the High Court exercises its jurisdiction. DECISION:-
77. Therefore, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Maintainable. Once the petition is found to be Maintainable, its Entertainability necessarily follows. Consequently, the Bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act would not be applicable VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -43- in case of revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
B. DECISION ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN BOTH
THE REVISION PETITIONS
78. Petitioner filed two Civil Revision Petitions i.e. CR-5832-2024 and CR-5968-2024, before this Court, against both orders of the Commercial Court.
a) CR-5968-2024, challenge in this petition is to order dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum- Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, Haryana, whereby two applications, i.e. one seeking leave to file replication along with additional documents and another application filed under Section 151 CPC for rectification/modification of the application seeking leave to file replication moved on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff were allowed.
b) CR-5832-2024, challenge in this petition is to order dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum- Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, Haryana, whereby application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) and Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -44-
79. Now coming to the decision on challenge in the present revision petitions to the orders dated 16.08.2024 passed on even date, whereby two applications, i.e. one seeking leave to file replication along with additional documents and another application filed under Section 151 CPC for rectification/modification of the application seeking leave to file replication moved by the respondent/plaintiff as well as order whereby application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) and Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the respondent/plaintiff have been allowed.
80. Once the present revision petitions are maintainable and entertainable, this Court has to scrutinize the record as well as statutory provisions to hold as to whether any interference is required by this Court or not? Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, both the civil revision petitions are decided vide this common judgment. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
81. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends as under:-
(i) that before instituting the summary suit, the respondent/plaintiff had issued Demand Notice dated 01.09.2018 under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The petitioner/defendant filed reply dated 10.09.2018 and categorically denied any admission to pay the claimed amount. In sub para (G) of the said reply, it has been VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -45- stated that respondent/plaintiff itself has considered its claim for additional work which are subject matter of the demand notice, as disputed. The entire reading of reply shows that petitioner/defendant denied its liability in toto and also denied that any extra work was carried out.
(ii) that after receiving reply dated 10.09.2018, the respondent/plaintiff did not approach National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as the amount was disputed by the petitioner/defendant and instead decided to institute summary suit before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram. The said civil suit was instituted on 15.09.2018 (Annexure P-16), though it was verified on 19.08.2018 and is dated 31.08.2018. These two dates of 19.08.2018 and 31.08.2018 are irrelevant because the suit was admittedly instituted on 15.09.2018, when the respondent/plaintiff was aware of the defence which was set up by the petitioner/defendant in its reply dated 10.09.2018.
(iii) that vide order dated 13.02.2020, application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant was allowed and plaint was returned to be filed before the Commercial Court. It may be mentioned here that despite the specific value of the suit being above Rs.50 Lacs, VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -46- summary suit was required to be filed before the Commercial Court, yet the respondent/plaintiff filed the summary suit in the trial Court. The petitioner/defendant was therefore well within its rights to object to the same and therefore application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was rightly filed.
(iv) that admittedly the said suit was presented before the Commercial Court on 07.01.2022. Pertinently a statement of truth dated 07.01.2022 was also filed along with the commercial summary suit. Therefore, on 07.01.2022, the provisions of Order XI became strictly applicable on the respondent/plaintiff and the respondent/plaintiff was therefore mandated by law to attach a list along with the copies of all documents in its power, possession, custody and control and pertaining to the proceedings whether in favour or adverse to its interest. The respondent/plaintiff while filing the statement of truth on 07.01.2022 itself complied with the requirement of Order XI Rule 3 CPC and therefore was aware and conscious that provisions of Order XI were applicable on it with effect from 07.01.2022. That provisions of Order XI are also applicable to summary suit filed under Order XXXVII. The requirement of producing all documents in its power, VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -47- possession, control or custody is mandatory and irrespective of the fact whether such documents had been pleaded in the plaint or not.
(v) that the petitioner/defendant filed application for leave to defend dated 10.03.2022 in the commercial suit.
(vi) that vide order dated 19.01.2023, the learned Commercial Court granted leave to defend based on no objection given by the counsel for respondent/plaintiff.
(vii) that because the respondent/plaintiff filed the summary suit, the petitioner/defendant was permitted under law to file an application for leave to defend. In the said application also, the same stand as taken in reply dated 10.09.2018 was again taken.
(viii) that petitioner/defendant filed written statement dated 15.02.2023 and took the same stand that was taken in reply dated 10.09.2018 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as well as in the application for leave to defend dated 10.03.2022.
(ix) that the respondent/plaintiff filed an application seeking permission of the Court to file replication dated 31.05.2023. The said replication was accompanied by 600 pages of documents and contain averments amounting to amendment of the suit.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -48-
(x) that vide reply, the petitioner/defendant opposed the said
application by stating that in the garb of the replication, documents which were required to be annexed with the civil suit and specially those which were in power, control and possession of the respondent from the very beginning could not be allowed to be taken on record in view of provisions of Order XI Rule 1 to 5 CPC as applicable to commercial suits.
(xi) that to get over the said objection the respondent/plaintiff filed application dated 20.01.2024 under Order XI Rule 1 and 5 CPC for permission to produce additional documents primarily under the following three grounds:-
(a) To answer the case set up in the written statement.
(b) Heavy documentation was not filed because the respondent/plaintiff initially filed a summary suit.
(c) The summary suit was converted into regular suit and the scope of the issues to be decided got widened.
(xii) that petitioner/defendant filed reply and denied the grounds as raised by the respondent/plaintiff, a stand was taken that respondent/plaintiff was aware of the case set up by the petitioner/defendant even before institution of the summary suit along with other grounds. In this VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -49-
regard, reference was made to reply dated 10.09.2018, which was in the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiff at the time of institution of the summary suit on 15.09.2018 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram. Even on 07.01.2022 when the summary suit was instituted in the Commercial Court, the respondent/plaintiff was aware of the reply dated 10.09.2018 and the entire stand of the petitioner/ defendant was within the knowledge of the respondent/ plaintiff. After the return of the plaint, it was presented as it is before the learned Commercial Court on 07.01.2022, though respondent/plaintiff could have amended the same it being a fresh plaint. Moreover, the requirement of the Order XI is the production of all documents which are in the power, possession, control and custody of the respondent/plaintiff and which pertain to the proceedings of the case. The said requirement is additional burden over and above the averments made in the plaint.
(xiii) that the learned Commercial Court, Gurugram has passed two impugned orders of even dates i.e. 16.08.2024, whereby two applications i.e. one for permission to place on record additional documents and another application to file replication have been allowed.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -50-
(xiv) that impugned orders dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, are liable to be set aside inter alia on the following grounds:-
a. In view of the reply dated 10.09.2018, respondent/plaintiff was aware of the defence taken by petitioner/defendant before institution of Civil Suit on 15.09.2018 as well as on 07.01.2022 and therefore, the case is not covered by exception contemplated under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC. b. Documents being voluminous is not an exception covered under Order XI Rule 1(c) CPC nor is it a reasonable cause as contemplated by Order XI Rule 5 CPC.
c. By conversion of regular suit into summary suit, the scope of issues to be decided by the learned Commercial Court remains the same as such a suit is not amended and is to be pursued by the respondent/plaintiff with same averments and therefore, the scope of suit remains the same. d. That while allowing application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) and 5 CPC, this Court has to examine the stand taken in the said application and as to VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -51- whether the said stand is correct or false? It is only after recording that the stand taken is bona fide and correct on facts, that the said application can be considered to determine whether it satisfies the requirement of Order XI Rule 5 CPC?
e. If the averments of replication are perused, it becomes clear that they amount to amendment of suit which is not permissible.
(xv) that in reply dated 10.09.2018 to demand notice dated 01.09.2018, petitioner/defendant states everything so explicitly which impliedly also conveys that no additional work was done.
(xvi) A belied/false/incorrect/concocted stand has been taken by the respondent/plaintiff that the respondent/plaintiff wanted to answer a case set up by the petitioner/defendant after filing of the plaint. Before or after filing of the suit the stand of petitioner/defendant remained the same. Therefore not covered by Order XI Rule (1)(c)(ii) CPC.
(xvii) that before and after conversion of summary suit into regular commercial suit, the averments in the plaint remain the same, it remains a suit for recovery based on admission. So the scope of issues to be decided also VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -52- remain the same as suit was not amended, however only the procedure to try the suit changes as petitioner/ defendant gets opportunity to defend the suit. (xviii) that the documents being attached with replication were to be attached with the suit, that is the legal requirement of Order XI Rule 1 CPC.
(xix) that under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, the provisions of the said Act apply the moment case is transferred. Therefore, at the time of presentation of plaint after return the rigours of Commercial Courts Act including Order XI CPC as amended were fully applicable and all documents were required to be attached even if the suit was filed as a summary suit based on admission. Requirement of Order XI CPC as amended is not diluted by provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.
(xx) that under Section 16(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, the provisions of CPC as amended will apply to the trial of suit, which will include summary suit also.
82. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
(i) Hanamanthappa Vs. Chandrashekharappa, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 1307.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -53-
(ii) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s
Modern Construction and Co., 2014 SCC Online SC 674.
(iii) M/s EXL Careers and another Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 621.
(iv) TTK Prestige Limited Vs. Baghla Sanitaryware Private Limited and others, 2024 SCC Online Del 882.
(v) CEC-CICI JV and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., 2023 SCC Online Del 2797.
(vi) Sudhir Kumar @ S Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar, 2021(13) SCC 71.
(vii) Bela Creation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anuj Textiles, Law Finder Doc ID: 1985005.
(viii) Nitin Gupta Vs. Texmaco Infrastructure and Holding Ltd., Law Finder Doc ID: 1466862.
(ix) M/s Sandy Ltd. Vs. M/s Diligent Media Corporation Ltd., Law finder Doc ID: 2306683.
(x) Society Des Produits Nestle and Another Vs. Essar Industries and others, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4279.
(xi) Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4012.
(xii) M/s Anant Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas, Law Finder Doc ID: 121180.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -54-
(xiii) Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Saregama India Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10215.
(xiv) Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swastik Associates and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1372.
(xv) State of Gujarat Vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1372.
(xvi) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. KS Infraspace LLP & Anr., 2020 (15) SCC 585.
(xvii) Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, 2003 SCC OnLine SC 829.
(xviii) Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mount Distilleries Limited, Law Finder Doc ID: 2739490.
(xix) Sri. P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy Vs. M/s Sreepada Real Estates & Developers Hyderabad and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4102.
83. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent contends as under:-
(i) that the respondent/plaintiff should be permitted to file additional documents under Rule 1(c)(ii) of Order XI of the Commercial Courts Act.
(ii) that the additional documents filed by the respondent/plaintiff are "in answer to the case set up by VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -55-
the petitioner/defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint".
(iii) that it was the petitioner's case in its reply to respondent's demand notice that it was in the process of cross- checking equipment details and cost submissions made by the respondent. There was no denial of the fact that the respondent had undertaken additional work for the petitioner and was therefore entitled to claim additional amount for that work. However, in the written statement filed before the Commercial Court at Gurugram, the petitioner took a somersault to the extent that it denied for the first time: (a) that there was any additional work undertaken by the respondent, (b) respondent's entitlement to claim any additional amount; and (c) the authority of the person who sent the email dated 25 February 2018. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to file additional documents (along with its replication) to rebut the case setup by the petitioner in its written statement.
(iv) that the respondent has reasonable cause for filing additional documents under Rule 1(5) of Order XI of the Commercial Courts Act.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -56-
(v) that even, assuming that Rule 1(5) of Order XI of the
Commercial Courts Act is applicable, the respondent has satisfied the threshold of 'reasonable cause', which justifies filing of additional documents. This is because:
(a) the suit is at an initial stage only, where issues are yet to be framed; and (b) the Petitioner has failed to establish any prejudice that may be caused to it if the additional documents are taken on record. The threshold of 'reasonable cause' requires lower degree of proof as compared to 'good cause'.
(vi) that courts in the past have held that no prejudice will be caused to the opposite side if the additional documents are taken on record at a pre-trial stage.
(vii) that in fact, courts have adopted a lenient view while considering an application for additional documents, holding that procedural and technical hurdles should not come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adverse party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon the procedural and technical violation.
(viii) that the commercial suit pending before the Commercial Court is at an initial stage, where issues are yet to be VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -57-
framed, and the parties will get an opportunity to indulge in admission and denial of documents, as a matter of procedure. Additionally, the nature of the suit has changed from summary suit to a regular suit. Therefore, the order of the Commercial Court taking on record the additional documents filed by the Respondent, has not caused any prejudice to the Petitioner.
(ix) He, therefore, prays that the respondent should be permitted to file replication.
(x) that Courts have held that plaintiffs have a right to file replication to meet with some of the new facts averred in the written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. Further, courts in a series of cases have allowed the plaintiff to file replication when the suit has been converted from a summary suit to a regular suit.
(xi) that the Commercial Court, by the impugned order, permitted the respondent to file replication to the written statement as certain facts were wrongly mentioned in the written statement, and the respondent has a right to controvert the same by filing replication.
(xii) he further submits that by way of filing the replication, it has merely countered/responded to the case setup by the petitioner in the written statement. It is not inconsistent VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -58- with the original plaint in any manner. The nature of the suit (i.e., recovery suit) and the amount claimed remains the same.
84. He relies upon the following judgment in support of his arguments:-
(i) Allahabad High Court Bar Asşn. Vs. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267.
(ii) Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited Vs. Black
Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) 17030-
17031/2021.
(iii) Jagadeesan Vs. K.R. Nivethan, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4671.
(iv) Eicore Technologies Vs. Eexpedise Technologies, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4012.
(v) Bennett Coleman Vs. ARG Outlier Media 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1457.
(vi) Bhutani and Company Private Limited Vs. Vias Dev 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5598.
(vii) Hassad Food Company Vs. Bank of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10647.
(viii) Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd Vs. V-Guard Industries Ltd., CS(COMM) 567/2021.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -59-
(ix) Sun TV Network Vs. Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd., A. No. 323 and 324 of 2022.
(x) Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another Vs. P. Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706.
(xi) Sirona Hygiene Private Limited Vs. Amazon Seller Services Private, CS (COMM) No. 503 of 2022.
(xii) Md. Islamuddin Vs. S.S. Kapoor, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3608.
(xiii) Ttk Prestige Limited v. Baghla Sanitaryware Private Limited and Ors., CS (COMM.) No. 281 of 2021.
(xiv) Sudhir Kumarv. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71.
(xv) Neelam Batra v. Ramchandra Ra 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3.
(xvi) Delhi Travels and Tours v. Motorola India 2000 SCC OnLine Del 192.
(xvii) Mukut Raj Laxmi v. Jitendra Singh 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 7054.
(xviii) Malgireddy Venkata Ramana Vs. Thippana Narsi Reddy, 2010 SCC OnLine AP 187.
(xix) Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Zarir Minoo Bharucha, 2005 SCC OnLine Kar 217.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -60- (xx) Noir Fashions (P) Ltd. v. Nishima Saurabh Pathak, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5032.
(xxi) Agva Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. AGFA-GEVAERT NV 2024 (97) PTC 312.
85. I have heard learned Senior counsels for the parties and perused both files of these cases with their able assistance.
86. Before proceeding further it would be apposite to reproduce certain relevant provisions of CPC as well as Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which reads as under:-
PROVISIONS OF CPC "Order XXXVII Rule 2 CPC:-
2. Institution of summary suits.--(1) A suit, to which this Order applies, may if the plaintiff desires to proceed hereunder, be instituted by presenting a plaint which shall contain,--
(a) a specific averment to the effect that the suit is filed under this Order;
(b) that no relief, which does not fall within the ambit of this rule, has been claimed in the plaint; and
(c) the following inscription, immediately below the number of the suit in the title of the suit, namely :--
"(Under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)."VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -61- (2) The summons of the suit shall be in Form No. 4 in Appendix B or in such other Form as may, from time to time, be prescribed.
(3) The defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub-rule (1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified, if any, up to the date of the decree and such sum for costs as may be determined by the High Court from time to time by rules made in that behalf and such decree may be executed forthwith."
"ORDER VII Rules 10, 10A & 10B CPC:-
10. Return of plaint.--(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall] at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.
Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.
(2) Procedure on returning plaint. --On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. 10A. Power of Court to fix a date of appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its return. -- (1) Where, in any suit, after the defendant has VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -62- appeared, the Court is of opinion that the plaint should be returned, it shall, before doing so, intimate its decision to the plaintiff.
(2) Where an intimation is given to the plaintiff under sub-rule (1), the plaintiff may make an application to thc Court--
(a) specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return,
(b) praying that the Court may fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the said Court, and
(c) requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be given to him and to the defendant.
(3) Where an application is made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2), the Court shall, before returning the plaint and notwithstanding that the order for return of plaint was made by it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit,--
(a) fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is proposed to be presented, and
(b) give to the plaintiff and to the defendant notice of such date for appearance.
(4) Where the notice of the date for appearance is given under sub-rule (3),--
(a) it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is presented after its return, to serve the defendant with a summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs, and VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -63-
(b) the said notice shall be deemed to be a
summons for the appearance of the
defendant in the Court in which the plaint is presented on the date so fixed by the Court by which the plaint was returned.
(5) Where the application made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2) is allowed by the Court, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to appeal against the order returning the plaint.
10B. Power of appellate Court to transfer suit to the proper Court.--(1) Where, on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal confirms such order, the Court of appeal may, if the plaintiff by an application so desires, while returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint, subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted, (whether such Court is within or without the State in which the Court hearing the appeal is situated), and fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is directed to be filed and when the date is so fixed it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is filed to serve the defendant with the summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court in which the plaint is filed, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs.
(2) The direction made by the Court under sub-rule (1) shall be without any prejudice to the rights of the parties to question the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the plaint is filed, to try the suit."
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -64- PROVISIONS OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT "16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes.--(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.
(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail."
"ORDER XI CPC DISCLOSURE, DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS IN SUITS BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION OF A HIGH COURT OR A COMMERCIAL COURT
1. Disclosure and discovery of documents.--(1) Plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint, including:--VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -65-
(a) documents referred to and relied on by the plaintiff in the plaint;
(b) documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the plaint, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the plaintiff's case;
(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant only--
(i) for the cross-examination of the defendant's
witnesses, or
(ii) in answer to any case set up by the
defendant subsequent to the filing of the
plaint, or
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
(2) The list of documents filed with the plaint shall specify whether the documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are originals, office copies or photocopies and the list shall also set out in brief, details of parties to each document, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of custody of each document.
(3) The plaint shall contain a declaration on oath from the plaintiff that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by him have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -66- Explanation.--A declaration on oath under this sub-rule shall be contained in the Statement of Truth as set out in the Appendix.
(4) In case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents, as part of the above declaration on oath 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.
(5) 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. (6) The plaint shall set out details of documents, which the plaintiff believes to be in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant and which the plaintiff wishes to rely upon and seek leave for production thereof by the said defendant. (7) The defendant shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the written statement or with its counterclaim if any, including--VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -67-
(a) the documents referred to and relied on by the defendant in the written statement;
(b) the documents relating to any matter in question in the proceeding in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the defendant's defense;
(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by the defendants and relevant only--
(i) for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses,
(ii) in answer to any case set up by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
(8) The list of documents filed with the written statement or counterclaim shall specify whether the documents, in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant, are originals, office copies or photocopies and the list shall also set out in brief, details of parties to each document being produced by the defendant, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of custody of each document.
(9) The written statement or counter-claim shall contain a declaration on oath made by the deponent that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant, save and except for those set out in sub-rule 7(c) (iii) pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff or in the counter-claim, have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the written statement or counter-VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -68- claim and that the defendant does not have in its power, possession, control or custody, any other documents. (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 counterclaim, 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. (11) The written statement or counter-claim shall set out details of documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, which the defendant wishes to rely upon and which have not been disclosed with the plaint, and call upon the plaintiff to produce the same. (12) Duty to disclose documents, which have come to the notice of a party, shall continue till disposal of the suit."
"ORDER VI RULE 15A CPC SPECIAL AMENDMENT Commercial dispute of a Specified Value.--In its application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, in Order VI, after rule 15, insert the following rule, namely:-
"15A. Verification of pleadings in a commercial dispute.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 15, every pleading in a Commercial Dispute shall be verified by an affidavit in the manner and form prescribed in the Appendix to this Schedule.VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -69- (2) An affidavit under sub-rule (1) above shall be signed by the party or by one of the parties to the proceedings, or by any other person on behalf of such party or parties who is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case and who is duly authorised by such party or parties. (3) Where a pleading is amended, the amendments must be verified in the form and manner referred to in sub-rule (1) unless the Court orders otherwise. (4) Where a pleading is not verified in the manner provided under sub-rule (1), the party shall not be permitted to rely on such pleading as evidence or any of the matters set out therein.
(5) The Court may strike out a pleading which is not verified by a Statement of Truth, namely, the affidavit set out in the Appendix to this Schedule."
''APPENDIX-I STATEMENT OF TRUTH (Under First Schedule, Order VI- Rule 15A and Order XI- Rule 3) I ............the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. I am the party in the above suit and competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I am sufficiently conversant with the facts of the case and have also examined all relevant documents and records in relation thereto.
3. I say that the statements made in ........ paragraphs are true to my knowledge and statements made in ........ paragraphs are based on information VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -70-
received which I believe to be correct and statements made in .......... paragraphs are based on legal advice.
4. I say that there is no false statement or concealment of any material fact, document or record and I have included information that is according to me, relevant for the present suit.
5. I say that all documents in my power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by me have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that I do not have any other documents in my power, possession, control or custody.
6. I say that the above-mentioned pleading comprises of a total of ...... pages, each of which has been duly signed by me.
7. I state that the Annexures hereto are true copies of the documents referred to and relied upon by me.
8. I say that I am aware that for any false statement or concealment, I shall be liable for action taken against me under the law for the time being in force.
Place :
Date :
DEPONENT VERIFICATION I, ............................ do hereby declare that the statements made above are true to my knowledge. Verified at ......... [place] on this ......... [date] DEPONENT.".] VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -71- BRIEF REASONING GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE REPLICATION TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IS AS UNDER:-
87. That the respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,31,52,576.60/- along with pendente lite and future interest. After putting appearance, petitioner/defendant filed its written statement containing certain new documents, incorrect statements and factual misrepresentation, each of which were denied by the respondent/plaintiff and required an affirmative response from the respondent/plaintiff.
Additionally, the petitioner/defendant also placed on record certain documents along with its written statement. Therefore, the respondent/ plaintiff sought permission of the Court for filing replication, specifically denying the allegations made in preliminary submissions 1(a)(i) and b(i) and paragraphs 4.8 to 4.12 of the reply amongst other paragraphs of the written statement. With these averments, the application for seeking permission to file rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the respondent/plaintiff along with various additional documents.
88. Another application under Section 151 CPC for modification of the application seeking leave to file replication was filed on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff stating therein that due to inadvertent mistake while filing the application seeking permission of the court seeking leave for filing replication, along with certain documents, the respondent/ VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -72- plaintiff filed an affidavit instead of statement of truth in support of the said application, which was done inadvertently. This defect contemplated under Order VI Rule 15A CPC is a technical defect and is thus curable in nature. The application has been filed in a bona fide manner. Therefore, the application be allowed and statement of truth executed in support of respondent/applicant/plaintiff's application seeking leave to file replication be taken on record.
DEFENCE OF THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
89. Petitioner/defendant contested this application by filing reply in which preliminary submissions were raised that along with the plaint which was filed under Order XXXVII CPC, the respondent/plaintiff filed various documents duly supported by statement of truth including a declaration on oath stating that it has placed before the Court all the documents in its power, possession, control or custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by it and have disclosed the same and the respondent/plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody as mandated under Order XI Rule 3 CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes. And Order XI Rule 5 CPC barred respondent/plaintiff to rely upon any other additional documents which were in its power, possession and control but were not disclosed with the plaint. Therefore, the application moved by the respondent/plaintiff for seeking VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -73- permission to file replication along with voluminous documents cannot be allowed. Besides this, the application is also not supported by statement of truth and on this ground also, the application is liable to be rejected.
90. On merits, the petitioner/defendant admitted the filing of the suit and their appearance for contesting the suit and filing a written statement. However, all other averments made in the application were denied. Further, the petitioner/defendant contended that additional documents sought to be tendered along with replication also cannot be allowed in view of the statutory bar under Order XI Rule (1) and (5) CPC. Accordingly, it was prayed that application for permitting the respondent/plaintiff to file rejoinder to the written statement along with supporting documents be dismissed.
BRIEF REASONING GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR MODIFICATION/RECTIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE REPLICATION MOVED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IS AS UNDER:-
91. Another application under Section 151 CPC for modification/rectification of the application seeking leave to file replication was filed by the respondent/plaintiff stating therein that due to inadvertent mistake while filing the application seeking permission of the Court seeking leave for filing replication along with certain documents, respondent/plaintiff inadvertently filed an affidavit instead of statement of VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -74- truth in support of said application, therefore, he be permitted to file statement of truth.
DEFENCE OF THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
92. Petitioner/defendant stated that he did not want to file any reply to the application under Section 151 CPC for modification/rectification of the application seeking leave to file replication.
93. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce order dated 13.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, which reads as under:-
"Today the case was fixed for arguments and consideration on an application moved under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for return of plaint filed by the applicant/defendant company . Certain arguments and submission by both counsels have been submitted. However, at this stage, Sh. Tarang Aggarwal, learned counsel for plaintiff company has made his statement to the effect that in view of the objections and grounds taken by the defendant company in its application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the plaint may be returned with liberty to file the plaint before the Appropriate Competent Court as per law. A separate statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff company to this effect recorded.
Keeping in view of the afore-said statement, so made by the learned counsel for plaintiff company and VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -75- also in view of the contents of the present application, this Court is of the considered opinion that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the matter in dispute is a commercial dispute and as per the provisions of "The Commercial Court Act, 2015", the designated Special Commercial Court is having jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide such kind of commercial dispute. Therefore, the actual jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the matter, which is a commercial dispute among the parties to the suit, is lies with the designated Special Commercial Court. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstance, the plaint in original stands returned under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC. In view of the afore-said observation, the application in hand stands disposed off accordingly.
Despite proper intimation regarding return of present plaint in compliance of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10-A CPC, the plaintiff company has not filed any appropriate application for fixing a date for appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its return. Therefore, in these circumstances, no date could be fixed for appearance before the Competent Court in where plaint is to be filed on its return. Accordingly, the plaintiff company is granted 10 days time from today to submit the certified copies of plaint and attached documents for the purpose of proper consignment. Reader & Ahlmad attached to this Court are also directed to hand over the plaint in original along with attached documents to the plaintiff company or its Authorized Representative or agent, against proper VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -76- receipt and identification as per rules and thereafter, also made relevant entries in the prescribed Register of Return of Documents in this regard. Reader of this Court is further directed to prepare the brief statement and details of present case as per the provisions of Rule 10 (2) of Order VII CPC and get checked and verified by the Court. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
A copy of this order be given to both the parties to this suit, or their counsel, if so requested."
94. A perusal of the above referred to order shows that the plaint/ summary suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC in original was returned under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC to Commercial Court since the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the same.
95. Before the Commercial Court, on 19.01.2023, learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, exercising jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, passed the following order:-
"Reply to application under Section 151 CPC not filed on behalf of plaintiff.
Present is a summary suit under Order 37 CPC. Upon appearance, defendant filed an application for leave to defend which is pending. Today, learned counsel for the plaintiff has suffered the following statement:-
"On the basis of instructions given to me by the plaintiff, I state that the present suit was filed on 07.01.2022 as a summary suit to get expeditious VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -77- relief. The defendant has filed its application seeking leave to defend the summary suit and the same is pending adjudication. In order to avoid any unwarranted delay, the plaintiff has no objection if the aforesaid application be allowed and the summary suit is tried and decided as a regular civil suit. The application of defendant under Section 151 CPC for production of documents may also be allowed. Present statement has been made without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff and without conceding in any manner the legality or correctness of claims of the defendant."
In view of the above statement, application under Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of defendant is allowed. Documents mentioned in paras No.7 of the application be produced on the record on 15.02.2023.
The present suit shall now be tried as an ordinary civil suit. As such, written statement on behalf of defendant be filed on date fixed.
Application for leave to defend stands disposed of accordingly."
96. A perusal of the above referred to order shows that the summary suit was decided to be tried as regular civil suit on the basis of application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner/defendant and statement made by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the summary suit was filed by him to get expeditious relief and petitioner/defendant filed application seeking leave to defend the summary suit, therefore, to avoid unwarranted VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -78- delay, the respondent/plaintiff has no objection if the application be allowed and summary suit be tried and decided as regular suit. Further, the application of the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC for production of documents may also be allowed.
Therefore, the suit was tried as an ordinary civil suit and the date was fixed for filing written statement.
97. A perusal of the above referred to order further shows that the petitioner/defendant produced certain documents, which was also consented by the respondent/plaintiff to be allowed and that is how the application for leave to defend was disposed of.
BRIEF REASONING GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XI RULE 1(c)(ii) AND RULE 5 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IS AS UNDER:-
98. That after filing of the summary suit, petitioner/defendant sought leave to defend and raised objections regarding maintainability of summary suit and thereafter, respondent/plaintiff gave its consent for deciding the summary suit as regular civil suit and since the petitioner/defendant filed certain new documents, along with its written statement, therefore, in response to the same and the case set up by the petitioner/defendant, in changed circumstances, additional documents are necessary to be placed on record and prayed that the application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) and Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC be allowed. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -79-
DEFENCE OF THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT TO THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
99. Petitioner/defendant contested the application by filing reply that the additional documents filed along with the application may not be taken on record and that the respondent/plaintiff cannot be permitted to re- agitate the same relief again by moving application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) and Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC. Further objection raised by the petitioner/defendant was that the documents cannot be taken on record in view of the averments made in statement of truth originally filed on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff at the time of filing the suit in view of Order XI Rules (1) (3) and (5) CPC.
100. Further contention was that respondent/plaintiff can not be allowed to place on record any document that was in its power, possession, control or custody since it is contrary to the statutory provisions of Order XI CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes. Further, that the additional documents cannot be filed by any party as a matter of right in commercial suit and no case is made out by the respondent/plaintiff for permitting it to file additional documents along with replication sought to be filed by or otherwise independently by moving the application. Accordingly, the application be dismissed.
101. The petitioner/defendant contested the application by filing reply in which preliminary submission was raised that along with the plaint, which was filed under Order XXXVII CPC, the respondent/plaintiff filed VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -80- various documents duly supported by statement of truth including a declaration on oath stating that it has placed before the court all the documents in its power, possession, control or custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by it and have disclosed the same and the respondent/plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody as mandated under Order XI Rule 3 CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes. Further submission is that Order XI Rule 5 CPC barred the respondent/plaintiff to rely upon any additional documents in its power, possession and control but were not disclosed with the plaint. Therefore, the application moved by the respondent/plaintiff for seeking permission to file replication along with voluminous documents cannot be allowed. Beside this, the application is also not supported by statement of truth and on this ground also, the application is liable to be rejected.
102. On merits, the filing of the suit and appearance of the petitioner/defendant for contesting the suit and filing a written statement was admitted by the petitioner/defendant. Further, the additional documents sought to be tendered along with the replication were also objected to in view of statutory Bar under Order XI Rule (1) and (5) CPC as well as various judgments. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application for permitting the respondent/plaintiff to file rejoinder to the written statement along with supporting documents be dismissed. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -81-
103. Now coming to the judgments referred to by both the learned Senior counsels for the parties.
JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE PETITIONER
104. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar @ S Baliyan's case (supra), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that non- filing of additional documents on the ground that they being voluminous cannot be said to be a reasonable cause for non-disclosure/filing along with the plaint. In fact, in Sudhir Kumar @ S Baliyan's case (supra), the plaintiff withdrew the first suit with liberty to file afresh and thereafter, the second suit was filed and along with that all the documents were not placed on record on the ground that the record was voluminous. Therefore, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that, plea of plaintiff in suit that additional documents sought to be relied upon other than invoices were not filed as the same were voluminous cannot be accepted and that the rigor of establishing reasonable cause in non-disclosure along with plaint may not arise in case where additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to filing of plaint. Further that while granting leave to place on record additional documents, Court is not required to consider genuineness of documents/additional documents.
105. Whereas in the present case, previously the suit was filed as summary suit before the regular court and thereafter, it was returned in original under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC for lack of territorial VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -82- jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit, since the matter in dispute is commercial in nature to the Commercial Court. It would be relevant to mention here that before the Commercial Court as well, the summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC in original was filed. And the petitioner/defendant filed an application for leave to defend. Thereafter, the suit was proceeded to be tried as regular civil suit by the Commercial Court on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, vide order dated 19.01.2023. Along with the application of leave to defend, petitioner/defendant mentioned in para 7 of the application certain documents those were also allowed to be produced on record on 15.02.2023. On 15.02.2023, petitioner/defendant filed written statement. And since certain new facts arose and new documents were filed by the petitioner/defendant, to prove the same, respondent/plaintiff moved an application to place on record the additional documents, therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of Sudhir Kumar @ S Baliyan's case (supra).
106. Reliance on the judgments passed by Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, Gujarat High Court, Sikkim High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court is placed to support his argument regarding belatedly filing of additional documents without establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure at the appropriate stage.
107. Further to support his argument that the respondent/plaintiff was in power, possession, control and custody of the documents, therefore, VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -83- could file the documents along with the suit as well, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hanamanthappa's case (supra) to contend that even when suit is filed before the Court which had no jurisdiction and fresh suit is filed before the competent court, fresh suit would be treated as fresh for all purposes, even for filing along with required documents. And it cannot be treated as continuation of the same suit.
108. Further reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra) and M/s EXL Careers and another's case (supra) to contend that when the plaint is returned to plaintiff since the Court had no jurisdiction, after presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood concluded before the Court having no competence to try the same. JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE RESPONDENT
109. Now coming to the judgments relied upon by learned Senior counsel for the respondent to support his arguments on filing of additional documents in response to case set up by the petitioner/defendant after filing of the plaint. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sugandhi's case (supra), which is strongly objected to by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the ground that this judgment is not a judgment under the Commercial Courts Act, therefore, principle laid down therein cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -84-
110. He further relies upon the judgment passed by Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.20479 of 2022 (GM-CPC) titled as 'M.E.Chandrappa Vs. M.E. Basavaraj and others' decided on 18.12.2023, wherein it has been observed that rejoinder or replication could be filed to explain contentions already taken, but cannot raise new plea or made out new case.
CONCLUSION
111. Before proceeding to conclude, it would be relevant here to discuss certain provisions of CPC as well as Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as reproduced above. A bare reading of Order XXXVII Rule 2 CPC shows that summary suit is filed where the defendant shall not defend the suit normally.
112. Order VII Rule 10 CPC reads about return of plaint. And on returning the plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and its return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.
113. Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act is the amendment to CPC, in its application to commercial disputes.
114. Order XI CPC provides for disclosure, discovery and inspection of documents in suits before the commercial division of a High Court or a Commercial Court. It further states that the plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint. Further, VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -85- there is an exception to Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC, wherein, it is specifically stated that nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant only in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint.
115. Order VI Rule 15A CPC provides for verification of pleadings in a commercial dispute by an affidavit in the manner and form prescribed in the Appendix to this Schedule.
116. Appendix is the statement of truth in the form of affidavit. Para 5 of which shows that "all documents in my power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by me have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that I do not have any other documents in my power, possession, control or custody".
117. Admittedly, summary suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the Civil Court on the basis of admission in the e-mail sent by the petitioner/defendant. Thereafter, on the objections raised by the petitioner/defendant, the plaint was returned in original under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before the Commercial Court, since the Civil Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the summary suit filed before it and since the matter in dispute was a commercial dispute.
118. And since the petitioner/defendant filed an application for leave to defend the summary suit, therefore, it was tried and decided as a regular VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -86- suit with the consent of both the parties. Thereafter, petitioner/defendant filed written statement alongwith certain documents and certain new pleas because of which the respondent/plaintiff wanted to file replication along with additional documents and since additional documents were required to be filed with replication and with the summary suit statement of truth was filed as per the summary suit only, therefore, petitioner/defendant moved an application to file replication/modification along with additional documents and rectification of statement of truth.
119. As per Order XI CPC, which is an amendment to CPC, in its application to commercial disputes as per Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, Rule 1 of which reads that plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit along with the plaint, including (a) documents referred to and relied on by the plaintiff in the plaint; (b) documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the plaint, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the plaintiff's case. Order XI, Rule 1(c) provides for exception to same, which contains that nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiff and relevant only (i) for the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses, or (ii) in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or (iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Rule 3 of Order XI CPC provides that the plaint shall contain a VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -87- declaration on oath from the plaintiff that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by him have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody. This declaration on oath shall be contained in the Statement of Truth.
120. Rule 5 of Order XI CPC provides that 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 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.
121. As per requirement of Order VI Rule 15A CPC, there is a requirement of verification of pleadings in a commercial dispute in the form of statement of truth.
122. A bare reading of Order XI CPC shows that there is not a complete bar on the production of documents, which were not filed along with the plaint/suit since there are exceptions to it.
123. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon Order XI Rule 5 CPC to support his argument that the respondent/plaintiff should not be allowed to rely upon documents, which were in his power, possession, control or custody and which were not disclosed along with the plaint, whereas, learned Senior counsel for the respondent relies upon Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC to contend that the case of the respondent/plaintiff falls in VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -88- exception to Order XI Rule 1 CPC and the additional documents are required to be filed in answer to the contentions raised in the written statement.
DECISION
124. Though this Court has extensively heard learned Senior counsel for the parties and perused the files of both the cases with their able assistance but it would not be appropriate to comment on the merits of the case in the interest of justice. Now to decide as to whether any interference is required by this Court in present revision petitions in view of the facts and circumstances of these particular cases.
125. A bare reading of impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed in CR-5968-2024 dealing with the application seeking leave to file replication and application for rectification/modification of application seeking leave to file replication shows that it was filed since in the written statement certain facts were wrongly mentioned, therefore, to rebut those, replication was required to be filed. Further since the application seeking permission for filing replication was not accompanied by statement of truth, therefore, respondent/plaintiff sought rectification/modification of the application, which was previously supported by an affidavit instead of statement of truth. It is mere irregularity and not illegality, therefore, both the applications for seeking permission to file replication to the written statement as well as rectification/modification of application seeking leave to file replication by VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -89- permitting the respondent to file statement of truth in support of application of the respondent/plaintiff seeking leave to file replication was rightly allowed, since denial of the recovery of Rs.5,31,52,576.60 by the petitioner/defendant in the written statement was to be proved by the respondent/plaintiff by filing the replication.
126. A bare reading of the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed in CR-5832-2024 shows that respondent/plaintiff had given the details of documents sought to be tendered in his application which are copies of Purchase Orders of different dates issued by the petitioner/defendant in relation to the project along with summary sheets prepared by the respondent/plaintiff which the respondent/plaintiff intends to place on record to ascertain the scope of work as was originally agreed between the parties which are relevant to prove the additional civil and structural works undertaken by the respondent/plaintiff for the petitioner/defendant and the rates of these works, further various e-mails exchanged between the parties relating to their work order and related issues regarding payments.
127. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed in CR-5832-2024 further shows that the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- and additional documents are permitted to be produced on the case file subject to objections as to the admissibility, relevance and proof of these documents. Further, by allowing the applications, the nature of suit is not amended since the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,31,52,576.60 VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -90- with interest against the petitioner/defendant which is denied by the petitioner/defendant in its application for leave to defend and to prove the recovery of Rs.5,31,52,576.60, additional documents are placed on record.
128. Procedural and technical hurdles should not come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice.
129. Suit is at initial stage and issues are yet to be framed. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant and he would be getting full opportunity to rebut/deny the documents and can lead evidence as well.
130. Since the nature of suit remains recovery suit and the amount claimed also remains the same, therefore, if the additional documents are allowed to be filed along with replication, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant.
131. Therefore, to deliver complete justice to the parties and to decide the recovery from the petitioner/defendant, the additional documents to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff are necessary to prove the same. It is apparent from the file that case of the respondent/plaintiff is covered under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC.
132. In view of the above, learned Additional District Judge-cum- Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, has rightly allowed both the applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff vide its orders of even dates i.e. 16.08.2024 in both the revision petitions. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 5832 & 5968 -2024 (O&M) -91-
133. Since the High Court cannot test the legality of the order of the courts through the lens of appellate body and cannot in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, convert itself into a court of appeal, therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders of even dates i.e. 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, in both the revision petitions.
134. Consequently, both the revision petitions i.e. CR-5832-2024 and CR-5968-2024 are hereby dismissed.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 12.01.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.01.19 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document