[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Limited vs New India Assurance on 4 February, 2026
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
Judgment (2)
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
IA No. GA-COM/3/2025
[OLD NO. CS/3/2023]
In CS-COM/452/2024
INDORAMA INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED
VS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
For the plaintiff : Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Parkayastha, Adv.
Ms. Sushmita Choudhury, Adv.
For the defendants : Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Heard on : February 4, 2026
Judgment on : February 4, 2026
[In Court]
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :
FACTS:
1. Instant application has been filed by the plaintiff, inter alia,
praying for following reliefs:
"a) Pass an order of to allow the petitioner to substitute
and replace the wrongly annexed documents and
annex the missing documents and correct the
Annexure number of the wrongly numbered Annexure,
fuller particulars of which is described in paragraph
number 13 in this petition;
b) Pass an order allowing the plaintiff to disclose the
aforesaid documents to the defendant and direct the
defendant to take inspection of the same;
c) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above;
d) Such further and/or other orders as in the
circumstances may deem fit and proper."
2. The plaintiff claims the insured amount for the alleged damages
suffered by the plaintiff in the manner and mode stated in the
plaint allegedly payable by the defendant Insurance Company.
3. The specific case made out in the application is that certain
documents which have already been pleaded in the plaint, either
the actual, true and correct document is not disclosed in the
plaint and for subsequent disclosure, as mandatorily required
under the amendment taken place in Code of Civil Procedure in
view of the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act or the
correct annexures though disclosed but marked wrongly and not
in the alphabetical sequence, are required to be corrected.
4. In support of the above contentions, the plaintiff/petitioner has
made necessary averments, inter alia, in paragraphs 8 to 13 of
IA No. GA-COM/3/2025
[OLD NO. CS/3/2023]
In CS-COM/452/2024
A.R., J.
the application. Paragraph 13 contains a Tabular Statement
showing the error occurred while disclosing the necessary
documents in the plaint or in the disclosure of the documents.
5. In the above backdrop, the instant application has been filed.
6. Parties have filed and exchanged their affidavits, the same are on
record.
SUBMISSION:
7. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the plaintiff/petitioner refers to serial No. 1 from the Tabular
Statement stated in paragraph 13 of the application and
submits that the document has duly been pleaded in
paragraph 6(c) at page 18 to the plaint. However, the
document has been annexed to the plaint wrongly at pages
41 and 42 to the application, whereas the correct document
has been annexed at page 231 to the application.
8. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, learned Senior Advocate has drawn
attention of this Court to serial No. 2 from the Table where the
correct document is annexed to the plaint and pleaded and
annexed to the plaint but marked as Annexure H in the
plaint whereas the alphabetical order should have been
Annexure M. This correction is required to be carried out
according to the plaintiff.
IA No. GA-COM/3/2025
[OLD NO. CS/3/2023]
In CS-COM/452/2024
A.R., J.
9. Insofar as Serial No. 3 is concerned, on instruction from the
plaintiff, learned Senior Advocate submits that the plaintiff
does not press for any correction or any relief in connection
therewith. Insofar as Serial No. 4 is concerned as mentioned
in the Table at paragraph 13 of the application, learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Mitra, submits that the document is
pleaded in paragraph 30 of the plaint at page 28 to the
application. The wrong document has been annexed in the
plaint at page 227 of the application whereas the correct
document is disclosed and annexed at page 246 to the
application, which has to be incorporated in the list of
disclosure.
10. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, learned Senior Advocate then submits
that inspection and discovery stage on the present form of the
plaint has been over but the issues have not been framed till
now in the suit.
11. Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate then refers to Sub-Rule 12
of Rule 1 to Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short "CPC") as amended in view of promulgation of the
Commercial Courts Act and submits that the parties to the
suit are duty bound to disclose documents which have come
to the notice of a party and such duty shall continue till
disposal of the suit.
IA No. GA-COM/3/2025
[OLD NO. CS/3/2023]
In CS-COM/452/2024
A.R., J.
12. Referring to the explanation offered in various paragraphs in
the application as already referred to above. Mr. Mitra,
learned Senior Advocate submits that unless the correct
documents are allowed to be disclosed by the plaintiff in the
disclosure of the documents, the proper adjudication will not
be possible in the suit and the plaintiff may suffer irreparable
prejudice in that event. The plaintiff has all along proceeded
bona fide and without any delay or latches.
13. In light of the above, Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate
submits that the application should be allowed.
14. Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for
the defendant Insurance Company has vehemently and
vigorously opposed the application. Referring to the averments
made in the application, Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned
Advocate submits that no sufficient cause has been shown as
to why even after the stage of discovery and inspection, the
plaintiff waited for a substantial period of time and then took
out this application. The suit is almost two years old. In
absence of the proper pleadings and explanations, the cause
shown in the application by the plaintiff should not be
accepted as just, cogent or sufficient. He then further submits
that if these documents are allowed to be disclosed and the
disclosure of the document already made by the plaintiff is
allowed to be corrected then the entire process of inspection
IA No. GA-COM/3/2025
[OLD NO. CS/3/2023]
In CS-COM/452/2024
A.R., J.
and discovery has to be re-conducted, which will consume a
substantial time to the prejudice of the defendant.
DECISION:
15. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court
that the documents which are spoken of by the
plaintiff/petitioner and the corrections are sought for in
connection therewith have been already pleaded in the plaint.
The plaintiff has raised its claim in connection with such
document or in relation thereto, which is already pleaded in
the plaint.
16. Once the case is pleaded in the plaint, it is incumbent upon
the plaintiff to prove its case and the defendant then shall
have to dislodge the claim of the plaintiff and ultimately
whoever would succeeds, the result shall be in its favour.
17. In an adversarial litigation, the parties shall have to be
granted the fullest opportunity. Rule of law is that once the
documents are disclosed by the plaintiff, the defendant gets
an opportunity to deal with it and to controvert it at the stage
of the witness action to dislodge those documents. These are
in conformity with the principle of natural justice.
18. On a meaningful reading of the various provisions laid down
under the amended Order XI of CPC, this Court is also of
IA No. GA-COM/3/2025
[OLD NO. CS/3/2023]
In CS-COM/452/2024
A.R., J.
the view that, there shall not be an absolute bar for the
plaintiff to correct the error committed by it while disclosing
the document, particularly at the present stage of the suit,
where issue has not yet been framed.
19. There is no absolute bar in law even for disclosing documents
at a subsequent stage. Only the Court is to examine and
scrutinise the reasons shown by the applicant and if the
reasons are found to be just and cogent, the Court in exercise
its discretion can grant leave for subsequent disclosure
instead of depriving the party from an opportunity to establish
its case to the fullest extent.
20. Procedural irregularity shall not stand in the way of
substantive justice. The averments in the application shows
that the plaintiff was diligent and proceeded bona fide but due
to inadvertence or out of bona fide mistake, the error had
cropped up while disclosing the document.
21. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is
satisfied that sufficient reasons have been shown by the
plaintiff to cure the defects under the disclosure of the
document.
22. The application being IA No. GA-COM/3/2025 stands
allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion
subject to payment of costs of Rs.60,000/- to be paid by the
IA No. GA-COM/3/2025
[OLD NO. CS/3/2023]
In CS-COM/452/2024
A.R., J.
plaintiff to the appropriate authority of the defendant
positively within three weeks from date.
23. After the correction and rectification of the disclosure of
document already disclosed by the plaintiff, there shall be a
fresh inspection, discovery, admission and denial of the
documents, only to the extent of those corrected and
incorporated document, to be done by the defendant within a
period of four weeks from the date of service of rectified and
corrected disclosure of the document in accordance with law.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
Sbghosh
IA No. GA-COM/3/2025
[OLD NO. CS/3/2023]
In CS-COM/452/2024
A.R., J.
