The Telangana High Court has reaffirmed that allowing a party to file additional documents at the trial stage without a reasonable cause undermines the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, which aims for the speedy disposal of commercial suits. The case arose when a Commercial Court permitted defendants to submit several documents on record more than three years after filing their written statement, on the basis that these documents had been referred to in the written statement and that their relevance was undisputed by the plaintiff. The High Court held this reasoning insufficient to justify belated filing.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, emphasized that under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the 2015 Act, a defendant is required to file along with the written statement a list of all documents in their possession, power, or control that relate to the suit, including photocopies. A declaration on oath must accompany that list.
The Court noted that merely referring to a document in the written statement does not excuse non‑filing of the actual document at that time. It observed that the statutory obligations under Order XI Rule 1 and the accompanying oath demonstrate the legislative intent to prevent defendants from delaying litigation by withholding relevant documents until later stages.
The Court further explained that the opportunity to submit additional documents after filing the written statement is strictly limited to situations where the defendant can demonstrate a reasonable cause for non‑disclosure at the time of filing. Accepting mere references in the written statement, without providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay, was held to be an error by the Commercial Court.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the orders of the Commercial Court that had allowed the additional documents to be filed. The petitions challenging those orders were allowed, reinforcing the principle that late submission of documents without adequate justification is impermissible under procedural law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.