Isabella Mariam

The Calcutta High Court Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held that there is no absolute bar on production of additional documents in commercial suits beyond CPC timelines, and courts retain discretion to permit late disclosure at any stage — including at arguments — provided reasonable cause for earlier non-disclosure is shown. The Court clarified that Order XI Rule 1 ensures procedural discipline but cannot be applied so rigidly as to defeat substantive justice.

The matter arose from a commercial suit in which the defendant did not file a written statement and consequently forfeited its right under the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was marked as undefended. The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff’s witness had been concluded, and the defendant did not cross-examine the witness.

Also Read: IBC | Supreme Court Cautions Against Unsuccessful Resolution Applicants Using Procedural Irregularity As Pretext To Challenge CoC's Commercial Decisions

At the stage of arguments, the plaintiff filed an application seeking leave to disclose additional documents annexed as “C-1” to “F”, to prepare an additional Judges’ Brief of Documents, and to file an affidavit of evidence of a second witness for proving such documents. The plaintiff submitted that though the documents were in its power, possession, control, and custody at the time of filing the suit, they were not disclosed with the plaint. It contended that the documents were necessary to answer specific queries raised by the Court regarding detention charges of USD 24,000 for a vessel and the comparative cost of shipment from Kolkata and Singapore. The application invoked Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, contending that reasonable cause existed for non-disclosure.

The Court quoted Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC and recorded: “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.”

On interpreting the scheme of Order XI Rule 1, the Court observed: “On a meaningful reading of Sub-Rule 1 to Sub-Rule 3 to Rule 1, it appears to this Court that after the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘CC Act’), it is a mandatory obligation upon the plaintiff to disclose all documents at the time of filing of the suit with the plaint which are in power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit in the manner and mode as stated in the Rules.”

The Court further stated: “On a meaningful and conjoint reading of the above Rules, this Court is of the considered view that even after Sub-Rule 4 stage, legislature thought it fit to include Sub-Rule 5 while amending CPC, where Court can exercise its discretion by granting leave to the plaintiff to disclose additional documents even after the extended period as provided under Sub-Rule 4.”

It recorded: “This Court is therefore, of the view that there is no absolute bar imposed after Sub-Rule 4 stage, as Sub-Rule 5 has been engrafted in the Code.”

On the stage of consideration, the Court stated: “The worthiness and veracity of these additional documents cannot be assessed or adjudicated upon at this stage and the same can only be adjudicated upon at the time of final trial of the suit.” The Court concluded on the explanation offered: “The causes shown in the application are found to be just, cogent and reasonable.”

The Court directed: “Accordingly, this application IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 stands allowed with the following findings and directions : (a) There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) to the Notice of Motion; (b) There shall be an order in terms of prayer (b) to the Notice of Motion; (c) Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file evidence on affidavit of its second witness within six weeks from date but the said evidence on affidavit shall be restricted only with regard to the documents mentioned in prayer (a) to the Notice of Motion.”

Also Read: Panchayat Samiti Cannot Directly Blacklist Contractors Without Sequential Debarment Procedure And Hearing: Calcutta High Court

“It is needless to mention that the defendant shall be entitled to cross-examine the second witness of the plaintiff, which shall also be restricted only to these additional documents and not beyond that. The disclosure shall be permitted subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff in favour of Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from date. Upon costs being paid, the plaintiff shall furnish a copy of the money receipt before the department at the time of filing of the additional documents in accordance with law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Advocate; Ms. Labanyasree Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Sarbesh Choudhury, Advocate; Mr. Rohit Singh Parmar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Aruni Guha, Advocate

Case Title: Usha Martin Limited vs Balurghat Technologies Limited
Case Number: IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 in CS-COM/491/2024
Bench: Justice Aniruddha Roy