Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the trial court’s dismissal of an application under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 was legally justified and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed that the trial proceedings continue expeditiously and in accordance with law. It conclusively disposed of the petition and associated applications without granting any relief to the petitioner.

The dispute arose in a commercial suit instituted for recovery of ₹28,18,062/- by the respondent against the petitioner. The respondent, acting as plaintiff, filed the suit in 2019, while the petitioner (defendant) filed its written statement during the COVID-19 lockdown period in October 2021. This statement, however, was defective as it lacked mandatory elements such as a statement of truth, affidavit of admission/denial of documents, and requisite signatures. Despite the plaintiff not objecting to these shortcomings initially, the trial court took note of them and struck off the written statement via an order dated 19.04.2023.

Also Read: SC Cancels Bail In Post-Poll Violence Case | Crime Was A Grave Attack On The Roots Of Democracy | Fair Trial Impossible Amid Political Clout And Witness Intimidation

Challenging this order, the petitioner approached the High Court in CM(M) No. 990/2023, which was allowed on 17.08.2023. The High Court then permitted the petitioner to rectify the defects and file a compliant written statement. This rectified filing occurred on 17.10.2023, after which the trial court framed issues on 17.10.2023 and 11.12.2023.

On 19.12.2023, the petitioner filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC seeking to place on record additional documents, including email correspondences and a letter issued by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The petitioner claimed these documents were essential to confront the plaintiff’s witness during cross-examination and asserted that their earlier non-submission was due to restricted access to office records during the pandemic.

In response, the respondent argued that the petitioner had already been given ample opportunity to place all relevant documents on record when the written statement was refiled in October 2023. The respondent noted that by this time, pandemic restrictions had been lifted, and the petitioner’s inability to file documents earlier was not substantiated.

Moreover, the respondent pointed out that the application to bring in additional documents came only after the plaintiff’s evidence had concluded and was neither timely nor procedurally appropriate. They also argued that the petitioner had not confronted the witness with the documents during cross-examination, rendering the application an apparent afterthought.

The trial court dismissed the application on 31.01.2024, leading to the current challenge before the High Court.

The Court observed that under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, applicable to commercial suits, the defendant is mandated to file a list of all documents in its power, possession, control, or custody along with the written statement. The provision permits exceptions in certain scenarios, particularly documents used solely for cross-examination, which do not require prior disclosure.

Sub Rule 1(c)(ii) of Order 11 Rule 1 provides an exception for documents that are brought forth specifically for the purpose of cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses.

However, the Court found that in the present case, the documents in question were admittedly available to the petitioner at the time of refiling the written statement in October 2023. The Court stated: “Admittedly, petitioner was in power and possession of additional documents even when the written statement was filed.”

Referring to binding procedural requirements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court noted: “The mandatory requirements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as well as the amended CPC as applicable to commercial disputes, underscore the importance of procedural discipline and adherence to filing timelines.”

The petitioner’s reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for delay was dismissed: “This explanation is wholly unconvincing in the facts of the present case. The written statement was re-filed in October 2023, well after the COVID pandemic was over and all restrictions had been lifted.”

The Court distinguished the cited judgment Sudhir Kumar @ Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., noting that the principle regarding later discovery of documents does not apply where documents were already in a party’s possession.

On the petitioner’s argument regarding confronting the witness, the Court recorded: “The petitioner was not only aware of the existence of the documents but failed to use them when the Plaintiff’s witness was available for cross-examination.”

The record reflected that cross-examination occurred on 18.12.2023, while the application was filed a day later. The Court stated: “The application was reactive and lacking in bona fides.”

The trial court had also cited judgments in Anita Chhabra & Ors. v. Surender Kumar and Saregama India Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., and the High Court found no fault with such reliance.

Also Read: No Free Pass for Defamatory Speech | Allahabad High Court Upholds Summons Against Rahul Gandhi in Army Defamation Case | Prima Facie Offence Made Out

Ultimately, the Court found no procedural or jurisdictional infirmity in the trial court’s decision: “The Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law, and there is no perversity or manifest error that warrants interference.”

The High Court concluded the matter by stating that the petition and all pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

It further directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law.

The Court declined to interfere with the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the District Judge (Commercial)-08 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and dismissed the petition in its entirety, without imposing any costs or granting any relief to the petitioner.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Puneet Jaiswal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. J.K. Srivastava, Advocate

Case Title: M/s Unilec Engineers Ltd. v. HPL Electric Power Ltd.

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4910

Case Number: CM(M) 1870/2024 & CM APPL. 8896/2024 STAY, CM APPL. 17549/2024 STAY

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

[Read/Download order]