Calcutta High Court
Um Cables Limited vs Kushwah Ishwar Dayal on 28 October, 2025
OCD-19
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS-COM/659/2024
IA No. GA-COM/2//2025
UM CABLES LIMITED
-VS-
KUSHWAH ISHWAR DAYAL
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : October 28, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Gourav Purkayastha, Adv.
...for the plaintiff
1.
The plaintiff has filed the present application being GA-
COM/2/2025 praying for allowing the plaintiff to disclose certain
documents and to rely the same to prove the case of the plaintiff.
2. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has filed the
suit for recovery of money with respect of unpaid price of sold
and delivery of the materials to the defendant. He submits that
after filing of the suit, writ of summons was served upon the
defendant but the defendant failed to enter appearance.
Accordingly, the suit is proceeding undefended. The plaintiff's
witness was examined on 9th June, 2025 and the plaintiff has
closed the evidence. This Court has fixed the matter for
argument.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that when the plaintiff
is preparing for argument it was found that certain documents
i.e. emails dated 8th April, 2022 along with attachment sent by
the defendant to the Deputy Manager, Sales and Marketing of
the plaintiff, four road challans issued by the road carriers, e-
mail dated 1st June, 2022 enclosing two invoices dated 31st May,
2022 and 13th May, 2022, e-mail dated 4th August, 2022, the
notice dated 4th August, 2022, e-mails dated 5th January, 2024
and two e-mails dated 1st February, 2024. The said documents
are of prior to filing of the suit.
4. Plaintiff further intends to bring on record two documents i.e.
true copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of
the plaintiff at the meeting held on 20th January, 2025 and the
letter of authority dated 6th May, 2025 executed by the Company
Secretary of the plaintiff in favour of Deputy Manager, Sales and
Marketing of the plaintiff. These two documents are of after filing
of the suit.
5. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the documents could not
be included with the plaint at the time of filing of the suit as the
said documents were not in the registered office at Kolkata.
Subsequently, on being searched of the documents, the plaintiff
realized that the said documents are at Silvassa Office, Dadra
and Nagar Haveli where the plant of the plaintiff is situated and
goods were supplied from the said plant. He submits that plant
of the plaintiff is situated at Silvassa and registered office is at
Kolkata, documents of both offices were mixed up due to which
the said documents could not be disclosed at the time of filing of
the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the said
documents are very much necessary for the purpose of
adjudication of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment in the
case of Darrameks Hotels and Developers Private Limited -
vs- Brilltech Engineers Private Limited reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 4024 wherein Delhi High Court has held that it is
the Court to satisfy whether the plaintiff has shown any
reasonable cause for not disclosing the said documents. He
submits that under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the Code of Civil
Procedure though it starts from the word "that the plaintiff shall
not be allowed to rely upon the documents which were in
plaintiff's power, possession, control and custody and not
disclosed along with the plaint or within the extended period set
out above but in the said provision it is also provided that if the
plaintiff established that reasonable cause has been shown for
non-disclosure of the documents at the time of filing of the suit,
the Court can allow the plaintiff to disclose the documents
subsequent to filing of the plaint."
7. He submits that in the present case though the documents were
in possession of the plaintiff but it was in the factory site which
was situated at Silvassa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and the suit
was prepared at the registered office of the plaintiff at Kolkata
and filed before this Court. At the time of filing of the suit, the
plaintiff could not notice that the said documents were in the
Silvassa office wherein the factory of the plaintiff is situated.
Subsequent to the evidence led by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has
realized that the said documents are very much necessary for
proper adjudication of the case. Accordingly, the plaintiff after
due search has found the documents are in the plant office at
Silvassa and has filed the present application.
8. The plaintiff has also relied upon the unreported judgment in the
case of Emami Limited -vs- Dabur India Limited passed in IP-
COM/18/2024 dated 25th of September, 2025 wherein a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the use of the words
'reasonable cause' casts an obligation on the Court to consider
the nature of documents sought to be disclosed without which
the discretion vested in Court cannot be exercised.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the
documents and the judgments relied upon by the plaintiff.
10. The plaintiff intends to bring on record the documents which
were in possession of the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit. This
Court finds that the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of
money. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff as
per the order placed by the defendant, the plaintiff has supplied
the materials and raised invoices but the defendant has not paid
the entire amount and has only made part payment. The
documents which the plaintiff intends to bring on record are the
communications by the defendant to the plaintiff and the
challans and invoices show that the materials have been
supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff has
shown specific reason that the registered office of the plaintiff is
situated at Kolkata and the factory site is situated at Silvassa,
Dadra and Nagar Haveli which is far away from Kolkata and all
the documents from which the materials have been supplied
from the factory to the defendant were lying at the Silvassa
which is the factory site of the plaintiff, due to which the
documents could not be disclosed at the time of filing of the
present suit. This Court also finds that the said documents i.e.
e-mails, challans and notices are very much necessary for the
purpose of proper adjudication of the present suit. If at this
stage the plaintiff is not allowed to rely on the said documents
and prove the said documents in accordance with law, the
plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The Court has to
see whether the documents which the party has relied upon are
necessary for proper adjudication of the case along with cause
shown by the plaintiff.
11. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has
shown reasonable cause by which the plaintiff could not disclose
the said documents at the time of filing of the suit. This Court
also finds that the said documents are very much necessary for
proper adjudication of the case. As regard the other two
documents i.e. the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of
the plaintiff dated 20th January, 2025 and the authority letter
dated 6th May, 2025 are after filing of the suit and as such it is
not possible for the plaintiff to disclose the said documents at
the time of filing of the suit.
12. This Court finds that the plaintiff has already disclosed the said
documents in the Judge's Brief of Documents but he could not
rely upon the said documents as the same were not disclosed at
the time of filing of the case and incorporated with the Judge's
Brief of Documents without any leave of this Court.
13. Accordingly, the plaintiff is allowed to rely upon the documents
mentioned in paragraph 17 of the present application.
14. GA-COM/2/2025 is disposed of.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
S.Mandi/sp3
