All Such E-Mails Seem Necessary for Reaching Fair Decision of the Case | Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Discretion Allowing Belated Disclosure Under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manoj Jain dismissed a petition challenging the Trial Court's order allowing the plaintiff to place on record additional email communications in a commercial dispute. The Court held that the permission granted by the Trial Court was within its discretion and stated that no real prejudice would be caused to the defendant by permitting such belated filing. The Court further declined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, observing that the impugned order was neither perverse nor arbitrary. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
The matter arose from a commercial suit initiated pursuant to a contract awarded to the plaintiff after a tender process conducted by the defendant. The suit involved a claim of Rs. 65,24,759/- allegedly representing outstanding dues for incomplete civil works, including road and building construction. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations.
Numerous emails had been exchanged between the parties, with many referenced in the initial pleadings. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking leave to place on record 75 specific emails out of an alleged 500 exchanged. The plaintiff submitted that these emails were crucial for a fair adjudication and substantiated the falsehood in the defendant’s stand.
The plaintiff annexed all 75 emails with the application, stating they were essential to the resolution of issues in the suit. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, concluded that the plaintiff had shown "reasonable cause" as required under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC for non-disclosure at the initial stage and allowed the application. The Trial Court also granted the plaintiff permission to file a replication and allowed the defendant to place on record trailing emails.
The defendant challenged this order on two primary grounds. Firstly, that the plaintiff had not sought leave to file a replication, and the Trial Court acted suo moto in allowing such a step. Secondly, it was argued that the emails were always within the plaintiff’s possession, and hence, no reasonable cause had been shown for their belated disclosure. Citing precedents such as Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B. (2021) 13 SCC 71, Anita Chhabra v. Surender Kumar: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3089, and Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. v. VLCC Personal Care Ltd.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4587, the defendant sought to have the Trial Court’s order set aside.
In response, the plaintiff relied on authorities including Khurmi Associates (P) Ltd. v. Maharishi Dayanand Co-Operative Group Housing Society: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1011, Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd.: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1457, and Sudhir Power Projects Ltd. v. Prime Meiden Pvt. Ltd.: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7267, asserting that the impugned order was valid and required no interference.
Justice Manoj Jain began by stating Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, stating in “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.”
The Court recorded that the emails sought to be introduced were "documents of impeccable and unquestionable nature", and both parties had already referred to multiple emails in their pleadings. The dispute in the suit cantered on whether time was the essence of the contract and if the defendant was at fault. The Court stated that the exchange of emails could provide significant insights into these core issues.
Acknowledging that all the emails were already in the plaintiff's possession, the Court remarked that there had been approximately 500 emails exchanged, of which the plaintiff sought to introduce 75 to counter the defendant's stand.
In discussing the statutory framework, the Court observed that "the cause, which is to be shown by the plaintiff, is 'reasonable' and not 'sufficient or good' and use of word 'reasonable' makes the provision little less rigorous." It added that although the plaintiff should ideally have included these emails initially, "the importance and significance of these e-mails cannot be undermined."
Referring to Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan, the Court distinguished the facts by noting that the application in that case was filed after a ten-month gap following the filing of a second suit. By contrast, in the present matter, the application was filed promptly after the written statement.
Regarding the other cited precedents, the Court stated that in Anita Chhabra, negligence of counsel had been cited for non-filing, which was not the case here. As to Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd., the Court noted that although strict timelines apply to commercial disputes, the law permits additional documents if reasonable cause is shown.
In Khurmi Associates, the Court had previously allowed similar applications where the issues were yet to be framed and the documents supported the pleadings. The judgment in Agva Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Agfa-Gevaert NV, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7914, was also cited, where the Division Bench allowed belated documents on the ground that the documents did not alter the nature of the claim.
Quoting from Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs v. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706, the Court held: “Procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice.”
It was further noted that the Trial Court had already granted liberty to the plaintiff to file a replication. Rather than filing the replication, the plaintiff had opted to file the application for placing the documents on record. The Trial Court, in its order, reaffirmed the opportunity for the plaintiff to file the replication and also permitted the defendant to submit trailing emails, thereby neutralizing any claim of prejudice.
The Court stated: "All such e-mails seem necessary for reaching fair decision of the case and also to appropriately rebut the stand taken by defendant in their written statement."
The Court stated that procedural flexibility must serve the ends of justice, adding: "Importantly, as noted above, procedure cannot be an obstacle in dispensation of justice."
Referring to Shri Sunil Pasricha & Anr. v. Shri Shivam Gupta: 2025: DHC: 4334 and Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. v. Anil Bhasin: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5359, the Court summarized its supervisory powers under Article 227 as limited and to be exercised only when orders are grossly unjust or perverse.
“The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being one of judicial superintendence cannot be exercised to upset conclusions, howsoever erroneous they may be, unless there was something grossly wrong or unjust in the impugned order shocking the court’s conscience.”
The High Court concluded by stating: "As an upshot of foregoing discussion, it clearly emerges out that the impugned order, which is mere discretionary in nature, does not reflect any perversity, necessitating any kind of interference."
Accordingly, the Court ordered: "The petition is accordingly dismissed."
All pending applications were also disposed of in the same terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amandeep Singh and Mr. Pradeep Desodya, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advocate
Case Title: Darrameks Hotels and Developers Private Limited v. Brilltech Engineers Private Limited
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4404
Case Number: CM(M) 2333/2024
Bench: Justice Manoj Jain
[Read/Download order]
