Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Whether the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, permits a Plaintiff to repeatedly amend pleadings and introduce documents through successive applications, without proceeding with the Suit to trial?"

Vaibhav 902-IA-L-8377-2025

27. Mr. Kirperker then submitted that the aforesaid question would have to be answered in the negative since the Commercial Courts Act provides for a stringent procedural framework mandating complete and candid disclosure at the threshold. He submitted that the legislative intent behind the Commercial Courts Act was expedition, finality and procedural discipline. He thus submitted that any attempt to introduce documents belatedly must therefore be strictly scrutinised since the same militated against the scheme of the amended Order XI.

iv. Exhibits F-2 and F-3: He submitted that reliance on Nitin Sukhraj Jain v. Neoliva Life Science Pvt. Ltd. is misplaced. In that case, documents were produced within a reasonable time. Here, the Chartered Accountant's certificate and invoices are sought to be introduced after six years without explanation. The mere fact that a document was created subsequently does not justify its belated Vaibhav 902-IA-L-8377-2025 production, especially when viewed against the Plaintiffs' overall conduct.

36. He similarly submitted that Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. The Devicolam Distilleries Ltd. was also inapplicable since the documents were sought to be introduced after the Written Statement had been filed, on the ground of inadvertence, without establishing reasonable cause. It was in that context that the Court refused to permit the party to fill lacunae in its case. In the present matter, however, no plea of inadvertence has been taken. The amendment is sought on the basis that the documents fell within the statutory exception under Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) or came into existence subsequently. Moreover, in Mohan Meakin, the trial had already commenced, whereas in the present case, the proceedings are still at the pre-trial stage.

F. As regards proposed Exhibits D1, F1, F6 and F7, which are sought to be introduced in answer to the case pleaded in the Affidavit in Reply, I am unable to accept the Plaintiffs' contention that these documents would fall within the exception carved out under Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii). Firstly, the "case set up by the Defendant" as contemplated under Order XI must ordinarily be understood in the context of the pleadings, namely, the Plaint and the Written Statement, and not an Affidavit in Reply. Secondly, it is not in dispute that these documents were in existence at the time of the institution of the Suit. They were therefore available to the Plaintiffs even when the first amendment application was filed, which was admittedly after the Defendant had placed its Affidavit in Reply on Vaibhav 902-IA-L-8377-2025 record. The Plaintiffs have now, after a lapse of nearly six years from the filing of the Affidavit in Reply, sought to introduce these documents on the ground that they are required to answer the case set up therein. I am unable to accept this submission. The Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to place these documents on record when they moved the first amendment application. Having failed to do so at that stage, they cannot now invoke amended Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) as a device to introduce documents long within their knowledge and possession. In my view, the present attempt is nothing but an effort to circumvent the mandate of amended Order XI Rule 1(5), since the Plaintiffs would be unable to satisfy the statutory requirement of demonstrating "reasonable cause" for their earlier non-disclosure.