Permitting Additional Documents Without Reasonable Cause Defeats Speedy Disposal Of Commercial Suits; Telangana High Court Quashes Orders Allowing State To File Belated Material
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Telangana Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar allowed two civil revision petitions, setting aside the Commercial Court’s orders that had permitted the defendants in commercial money-recovery suits to place additional documents on record at a belated stage. The Bench held that allowing a party to introduce documents during trial without showing a reasonable explanation for earlier non-disclosure would frustrate the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to ensure expeditious disposal of commercial suits, and that documents cannot be received in evidence solely because they were referred to in the written statement. The Court accordingly declined leave to the State authorities, as defendants, to bring the disputed documents on record in the pending suits with the contractor-petitioner.
The Civil Revision Petitions arose from two orders dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner had instituted two commercial suits seeking declaration and recovery of amounts against the respondents. In the first suit, the claim sought recovery of Rs.5,17,65,337/-, and in the second suit, the claim sought recovery of Rs.9,07,27,864/-. The respondents filed their Written Statement-cum-Counter Claim in the first suit on 25.01.2021, which was adopted by the other defendants. The petitioner filed its counter shortly thereafter. The suit underwent transfers between courts and was renumbered at different stages.
In the second suit, the Written Statement was filed on 27.01.2022 and adopted by the other defendants. The petitioner filed its rejoinder, and the exhibits on behalf of the petitioner were marked in 2023. In both suits, the respondents’ right to lead evidence was forfeited by early 2025. The respondents thereafter filed applications to reopen evidence and subsequently sought to bring additional documents on record.
The respondents justified the delayed filing on the ground that the documents had been misplaced and were only traced later during a search. They also stated that the documents were public documents and essential for adjudication. The Commercial Court allowed the applications on the reasoning that the documents were already referred to in the written statements and their relevance was not disputed by the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged these orders on the ground that the respondents had not complied with Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner submitted that the respondents failed to establish “reasonable cause” for not filing the documents along with their written statements and that the Commercial Court incorrectly relaxed the mandatory statutory requirements.
The Court recorded that the respondents filed the applications “after more than three years of filing their Written Statements” and that the sole explanation offered was that the documents had been misplaced and later traced. It noted that the Commercial Court allowed the applications primarily on the basis that the documents “had been referred to in the pleadings in the Written Statements” and that the petitioner had not denied their relevance.
The Bench examined the statutory mandate under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the 2015 Act, and stated that the obligation of disclosure applied equally to defendants. It quoted that the defendant must file a list of all documents “in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the written statement”. The Court further recorded that Order XI Rule 1(9) required a declaration on oath affirming that all documents had been disclosed.
In interpreting the scope of Order XI Rule 1(10), the Court recorded that the Legislature used mandatory language in the “negative sense” and quoted: “defendant shall not be allowed to rely on documents… not disclosed along with the written statement… save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the defendant establishing reasonable cause”.
The Court observed that a mere reference to documents in the written statement did not absolve the defendants of their statutory duty and stated: “the mere reference to or reliance on a document by a defendant… cannot absolve the defendant of its duty of filing the said document”. The Bench stated that the Commercial Court “interchanged and in essence, interpolated the necessity of establishing reasonable cause” with the first-window disclosure obligation and accepted reasons that were “completely irrelevant to the limited relaxation available”.
The Court further recorded that the explanation that the documents were misplaced “by no means, satisfies the rigour of Order XI Rule 1(7)” and that defendants failed to provide any “real and substantial cause” for non-disclosure. It referred to precedent where Courts held that permitting belated documents without reasonable cause would defeat the purpose of the 2015 Act aimed at expeditious disposal of commercial suits.
Ultimately, the Court stated that the Commercial Court’s reasoning “is incompatible with the statutory framework” and that the acceptance of insufficient reasons was “discordant to the scheme” of the amended CPC provisions.
The Court directed that the impugned orders dated 10.06.2025 be set aside.“We hence deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders dated 10.06.2025. CRP.Nos.2677 and 2572 of 2025 are accordingly allowed in terms of the above.” All connected applications were disposed of. The Court stated that “There shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rusheek Reddy K.V., learned counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Herur Rajesh Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration
Case Title: M/s. Sri Vishnu Constructions v. State of Telangana and Others
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2677 and 2572 of 2025
Bench: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar
