Case Title: Md. Islamuddin v. S S Kapoor
Date of Order: November 1, 2022
Case No.: CM(M) 1137/2022 & CM APPL. 45868/2022
Neutral Citation: 2022/DHC/004587
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Md. Islamuddin, filed a suit in January 2021 against S S Kapoor and later sought to introduce additional documents—three invoices (dated June 9, July 27, and December 30, 2018) and a handwritten document (dated January 4, 2018)—allegedly containing an admission of liability by the respondent. These documents were not filed initially due to difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic. The District Judge (Commercial Courts) had earlier rejected the application to include these documents, questioning their genuineness.
Issues Raised:
1. Whether the petitioner could validly seek to introduce additional documents beyond those filed with the plaint.
2. Whether the application, although filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC (an incorrect provision for a commercial suit), should instead be treated under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act.
3. The extent to which procedural non-compliance should affect substantial justice in evidentiary matters.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
Procedural Misfiling and Liberal Construction: The judge noted that although the petitioner filed the application under the wrong provision (Order VII Rule 14 CPC), Supreme Court precedents (e.g., in Sudhir Kumar and related cases) allow such applications to be treated under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, provided there is a sufficient cause for the delay.
Focus on Reasonable Cause: Emphasis was placed on whether the petitioner could demonstrate “reasonable cause” for not filing the documents earlier—not on the documents’ evidentiary value at the initial stage.
Substantial Justice Over Technicalities: Citing the lenient approach endorsed in earlier judgments (such as Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar), the judge maintained that procedural technicalities should not obstruct the pursuit of truth and justice, especially when the alleged failure was due to pandemic-related difficulties.
Non-Issue of Genuineness at This Stage: The court clarified that at the stage of permitting additional documents, it is not required to decide on the genuineness of the documents; the primary consideration is whether sufficient cause exists for their delayed filing.
Decision of the Judge:
The court allowed the petitioner to place the additional documents on record, subject to the petitioner paying costs of ₹15,000 to the respondents within four weeks. Furthermore, the court permitted the respondent to file an additional or amended written statement if required to address these documents. The petition was thereby disposed of with no order as to costs against the respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment