Law Settled in the Case:
The judgment clarifies and settles important procedural law concerning the filing of additional documents in commercial suits under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), as amended for commercial disputes.
The High Court of Delhi held that:
1. Standard for Late Filing of Documents:
Under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, while the rule is strict, it allows for late filing of documents if the plaintiff can show a reasonable cause for non-disclosure at the time of filing the plaint. The term “reasonable cause” is broader and less stringent than “sufficient cause” or “good cause,” making the provision somewhat less rigid in application.
2. Nature and Relevance of Documents:
Documents which are of "impeccable and unquestionable nature," such as email communications already referred to in the pleadings, can be permitted to be filed even at a belated stage, especially when they assist in adjudicating the controversy fairly and cause no prejudice to the other party.
3. Discretion of Trial Court:
The discretion exercised by the trial court to allow additional documents, particularly before the framing of issues and at an early stage of the suit, does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution unless there is manifest perversity or jurisdictional error.
4. Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227:
The High Court reaffirmed that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and should be used sparingly, especially in the context of commercial litigation where the legislative intent is geared towards expeditious disposal.
5. Replication and Procedural Fairness:
The Court emphasized procedural fairness by allowing both parties reciprocal rights—permitting the plaintiff to file a replication and the defendant to file any trailing emails—thus maintaining parity and avoiding prejudice.
Darrameks Hotels and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brilltech Engineers Pvt.Ltd.:26 May 2025:CM(M) 2333/2024:2025:DHC:4404:High Court of Delhi:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain
