Bombay High Court
M/S. Krishala Associates vs Mr. Hiraman Dattatray Kalbhor And Ors on 16 June, 2025
Digitally signed
RAJESHWARI by RAJESHWARI
RAMESH
PILLAI
2025:BHC-AS:24211
RAMESH PILLAI
Date:
2025.06.19
05:50:02 +0200
12-WP-2881-2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
rrpillai CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2881 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1448 OF 2023
M/s. Krishalaa Associates
A Partnership Firm registered under
the provisions of Indian Partnership Act,
1932, Having its registered office at
151, Sheetla Nagar, Dehu Road
Pune-412 101 ... Petitioner/
Represented through its Partners Orig. Def No.1
Vs.
1. Mr. Hiraman Dattatray Kalbhor
Age - 47 years, Occupation: Business
Residing at : Elegant Residency
Flat No. 102, S. No. 3/2. Near Shankar
Temple, Sector No. 21
Mumbai Pune Highway ... Respondent No
Nigdi, Pune-411 044 Orig. Plaintiff.
2. Mr.Aakash Omprakash Agarwal
Age : Adult, Occupation: Business
Having Address at : 151, Prakash
Provision Stores, Dehu Road,
Pune - 412 101
Also Having Address at S. No. 41,
41, Estara, Near Savta Mali Temple
Punavale, 22T, Pune-411 033
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2025 23:32:40 :::
12-WP-2881-2023.docx
3. Mr. Hitendra Subhash Agarwal
Age - Adult, Occupation - Business
Residing at - 461 Elphinstone Road
Near T. J. College, Khadki,
Pune-411 003
4. Mr. Nikhil Lakshminarayan Agarwal
Age - Adult, Occupation - Business
Residing at -Apslope, 1/B, Diamond Park ... Respondents
Park Street, Wakad, Pune-411 057 Orig. Def No. 2 to 4
Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Hitesh Vyas a/w. Rasik
Raut for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendralal P. Gorane a/w. Mr. Abhijeet Derkhile for Respondent
No.1.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 16th JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for the final disposal of
both the petitions.
2. This petition is filed to challenge the order rejecting defendant
no. 1's application for leave to produce the documents on record
after the written statement was filed. Learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that by filing an additional
12-WP-2881-2023.docx
affidavit, defendant no. 1 explained the reasons for not producing
the documents at the time of filing the written statement. He submits
that the documents were under preparation by photocopying the
same, and thus the same was intimated to the learned Advocate for
the plaintiff, and it was agreed that the documents would be
submitted on the next date. He submits that immediately on the next
date, the application was filed for leave to produce the documents
on record. He submits that there is no outer limit to produce the
documents on record, and the only requirement is to explain the
reasons for not producing the documents at the time of filing the
written statement. He therefore submits that there is no impediment
in permitting defendant no. 1 to produce the documents as prayed
in the application at Exhibit 28.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposed the
petition on the ground that the understanding between the
Advocates cannot be a ground for not filing the documents along
with the written statement. He submits that the ground argued on
behalf of defendant no. 1, explaining the reasons for not producing
documents along with the written statement, cannot be accepted.
He submits that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and only
with an intention to delay the hearing of the application for interim
12-WP-2881-2023.docx
relief, such applications are filed by defendant no. 1 to protract the
litigation. He therefore submits that the impugned order will not
require any interference by this court.
4. I have perused the papers of the petition. The affidavit in
support of the application at Exhibit 28 refers to the reasons for not
producing the documents along with the written statement. Even if
the ground raised regarding the mutual understanding between the
two Advocates is ignored, the affidavit explains the reasons for not
filing the documents along with the written statement. It is
contended by defendant no. 1 that since the documents were under
preparation by photocopying the same, it could not be filed along
with the written statement. On the immediate next date, defendant
no. 1 filed an application at Exhibit 28 along with the documents and
a separate list of documents.
5. In view of Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015,
amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to the
commercial suits as per the schedule of amendments. In view of
Rule 10 Order XI of the Schedule, the defendant is permitted to rely
upon the documents not disclosed, along with written statements,
by seeking leave of the court by establishing reasonable cause for
non-disclosure of the documents along with the written statement. In
12-WP-2881-2023.docx
the present case, the reasons for non-disclosure of documents at
the time of filing the written statement are explained by defendant
no. 1 in the supporting affidavit at Exhibit-28. The reasons stated in
the affidavit are not disputed by the plaintiff by filing any reply.
6. The reasons recorded in the impugned order for not permitting
the production of documents would therefore not be sustainable.
Except for the provision to seek leave under Rule 10, there is no
outer limit fixed for the production of documents in the amended
rules applicable to commercial suits. The procedural law is the
handmaid of justice, and it should primarily serve to facilitate justice,
and the procedural rules should not be allowed to become rigid or
overly technical. Thus, the defendant no.1's application should not
have been rejected on hyper-technical grounds.
7. So far as the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff
regarding delay in hearing the application for interim relief is
concerned, learned senior counsel appearing for defendant no. 1 on
instructions submits that defendant no. 1 shall co-operate for early
disposal of the application for interim relief and shall not seek any
unnecessary adjournment that would delay the hearing of the
interim application.
12-WP-2881-2023.docx
8. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the impugned order
would require interference by this court as this is a fit case to
exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the petition is allowed by passing the following order :
(i) The impugned order dated 11 th October 2022 passed by
the learned District Judge-2, Pune, below Exhibit-28 in
Commercial Suit No. 40 of 2022 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The application at Exhibit-28 is allowed, and defendant
no. 1 is permitted to produce the documents as per the list
annexed to Exhibit-28.
(iii) It is clarified that the parties shall co-operate for the early
disposal of the interim application filed by the plaintiff and
shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(iv) Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.
9. In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2881 of 2023,
the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave
to withdraw this petition. Leave granted.
10. Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
