[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S Aerocomfort Anushka Jv vs M/S Krypton Height Builders & ... on 23 January, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd JANUARY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ I.A. 3812/2025
IN
CS(COMM) 1200/2016
M/S AEROCOMFORT ANUSHKA JV .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Madhu Sudan, Mr. Vikhyat
Oberoi, Mr. Ankit Kakkar, Ms.
Vedantika Shreya Mehra, Mr. Ravi
Sharma and Mr. Fazal Haroon, Advs.
versus
M/S KRYPTON HEIGHT BUILDERS & INFRASTRUCTURE
.....Defendant
Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr. Alok
Tripathi, Mr. Mohit Dagar, Mr.
Amitosh and Ms. Creesha Shastri,
Advs. for D-1 and 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application on behalf of Defendants No.1 and 2 under
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of written statement.
2. The instant suit is one for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,08,74,475/- along
with pendente lite and future interest.
3. Pleadings are complete. The material on record indicates that the
Defendant has filed a cross-suit being CS(COMM) 97/2017 before this
Court against the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,17,10,185/- along with
interest. The said suit of the Defendant is premised on the dishounoured
cheques for the sum of Rs. 3,17,10,185/-. In the said suit, it is the case of the
Defendant that it is the Plaintiff who owes money to the Defendant and that
the Defendant does not owe any amount to the Plaintiff.
4. To establish facts, the Defendant had filed a Memorandum of
Understanding dated 24.02.2012 entered into by the parties. The Defendant
also places reliance on the Letters dated 13.04.2023, 23.12.2023 and
05.02.2014 issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
5. Realising his mistake that the said facts do not form a part of the
written statement in the present suit, Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed this
application for amendment of the written statement to place on record the
abovementioned facts which have been omitted to be mentioned in the
written statement. The Defendants, therefore, seeks to insert these facts in
the written statement.
6. The Paragraphs which are sought to be inserted in the written
statement have been stated in Paragraph 14 of the present application for
amendment of the written statement. Paragraph 14 of the application is
reproduced as under:-
―14. It is submitted that the Defendant wish to amend
the Written Statement by inserting Preliminary
Submission after Para No. 11 in the Written Statement:
"PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
12. That during the month December 2009, the
Plaintiff was awarded a contract by Northern Railways
under Tender no. 17-Elect/DyCEE/C/T/34 (Two packet
system) for design, supply, installation, testing and
commissioning of app. 1300 TR capacity air cooled
screw chiller A.C Plant and 250 TR VRF/VRV type air
conditioning system complete with associated works in
Central Hospital building of Northern Railways at
Chelmsford Road, New Delhi (―Tender‖).
13. The Defendant was approached by the Plaintiff for
supplies, execution and supervision of the entire work
awarded by the Railways to the Plaintiff.
14. That upon further discussions and negotiations, the
Plaintiff sub-contracted certain works of material
supply, execution and consultancy works to the
Defendant. It was agreed between the parties that the
Plaintiff shall pay the amount against supplies
undertaken by the Defendant. Similarly, for the works
performed towards erection of the works, the
Defendant was to be paid in accordance with the works
performed by the Defendant. The payment and works
were to be pre-decided between the parties before
performance of the same by the Defendant. Further,
the Defendant was also to be paid towards consultancy
& supervision charges at the rate of ten percent of the
total Tendered amount.
15. The Defendant for all practical purposes was to
supervise the whole of the work that was awarded to
the Plaintiff under the said tender/work order/contract
by the Northern Railways. Not only the Defendant was
supervising the whole of the work that was awarded to
the Plaintiff, the Defendant was also deputed as
Authorised Representative of Plaintiff for dealing with
Railways for the above said tendered work.
16. It is further pertinent to mention herein that for the
purpose of the supervising the work being executed by
the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff, for the Tender,
the Defendant No.1 had appointed its own employees
including a full time Manager for effective
supervision. The salary, expenses and various others
emoluments were paid to the said employees by the
Defendant himself, however, at the cost of the Plaintiff.
17. It is submitted that work delegated to the Defendant
under the contract was in full swing, and the
Defendant duly supplied all the materials/goods to the
Plaintiff from January 2011 till March 2013. The
various materials supplied by the Defendant on behalf
of the Plaintiff includes but not limited to ceiling
section, gauge sheet, grill diffuser, Aluminium Sheets,
Vitrified Tiles, M.S Channel, Toughened Glass etc. The
Defendant raised various invoices in respect of the
supplies made to the Plaintiff during the said period.
18. It shall be further pertinent to mention herein that
not only the Defendant had supplied goods/materials
pertaining to the aforesaid tender/work/contract of
Northern Railways, however, at the instance of the
Plaintiff through Mr. Mayank Gupta, the Defendant
had placed order and made payments for material
supply on various firms viz a viz M/s Kamboj
Electrical, M/s Thorn Lightening India Pvt. Ltd. & M/s
Honeywell Automation India Ltd. on behalf of
Aercomfort Pvt. Ltd. (one of the partners of Plaintiff)
for his tender no. 17-Elect//DYCEE/C/47.
19. However, during the period between 2009-11,
certain disputes arose among the partners of Plaintiff
JV (Mayank Gupta and Raj Kumar Singh) due to which
the works started to get hampered. During the said
period, the Plaintiff among themselves and the
Defendant (through Sanjeev Ummat) entered into
various litigations/complaints against each other.
20. It is submitted that on account of various works
and supplies made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the
total outstanding amount stood at Rs. 2,60,49,342 as of
December 2011 and in part discharge of their liability,
the Plaintiff issued two cheques bearing no. 006256
dated 04.01.2012 and 006257 dated 06.01.2012 for an
amount of Rs. 75 lacs and 89.75 lacs respectively.
21. It is submitted that the said cheques issued by the
Plaintiff got dishonoured when presented by the
Defendant with his banker and the Defendant initiated
criminal proceedings under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Plaintiff.
22. It is submitted that the Plaintiff agreed to
compromise/settle the outstanding payment and as
such the Defendant did not pursue the said complaint
anymore.
23. The terms of the abovesaid settlement/compromise
were reduced into writing in a Memorandum of
Understanding bearing no. MOU 1175 dated
24.02.2012 arrived between the Defendant and
Plaintiff and as such it was agreed between the parties
that the Defendant shall be paid the whole of the
amount which is outstanding on account of the works
performed by the Defendant.
24. It is submitted that pursuant to the said MoU dated
24.02.2012, the Defendant again started fully working
for the Plaintiff and thought that all issues would stand
fully resolved in view of the said MOU. During the
period February 2012 to March 2013, the Defendant
for the works performed at the Site and supplies was
paid an amount of Rs. 1,36,20,463 by the Plaintiff
towards partial discharge of its pending invoices vide
cheque no. 409483, 409482, 409487, 409490, 409491
between 19.05.2012 to 13.08.2012.
25. It is submitted that in the meantime the Defendant
continued to perform works for the Plaintiff and the
outstanding amount which was pending with the
Plaintiff was to the tunes of Rs. 3,17,10,185/-. That
various meetings and discussions were held between
the Plaintiff and Defendant, and whereby Plaintiff
agreed to pay the aforesaid outstanding amount. That
the Plaintiff also wrote a letter dated 13.04.2013
admitting the aforesaid liability and further seeking
some time for the release of the above stated
outstanding amount.
26. That the Plaintiff in discharge of their liability
issued cheque no. 409488 & 409489 dated 27.05.2013
& 22.04.2013 respectively for a total amount of Rs.
3,17,10,185.
27. The Defendant presented the said cheques with its
banker on 27.05.2013. However, the Defendant was
shocked and surprised to receive the said cheques back
from its bank being dishonoured for the reasons
‗Funds Insufficient'.
28. The Defendant duly sent a Legal Demand Notice to
the Plaintiff within the stipulated period of 30 days.
However, Mr Mayank Gupta and Mr Raj Kumar Singh
requested the Defendant to present the said cheques
again and further assured that the said cheques shall
be honoured. On the basis of the assurance of the
Plaintiff the Defendant again presented the said
cheques and the same was again dishonoured on
presentation with the remark ‗Funds Insufficient'. The
status of both the cheques is shown herein below:
S. Cheque Issued in Amount Status
No. No. favour of
Bank and
Branch
1. 409488, M/s. Krypton Rs. 2,15,89,473 Dishonoured On
Allahabad Heights 17/07/2013 Bank
bank, Builders and memo of
Branch- Infrastructure 17/07/2013
DRM
Office,
New Delhi
- 110055
2. 409489, M/s Krypton Rs. 1,01,20,712 Dishonoured On
Allahabad Heights 21/06/2013 Bank
Bank, Builders and memo on
Branch- Infrastructure 21/06/2013
DRM
Office,
New
Delhi-
110055
29. The Defendant being left with no other option was
constrained to file a criminal complaint under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pertaining
to the said cheques vide Complaint Case No.
51932/2016 and Complaint Case No.51933/2016 and
the same is pending before the Ld. Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
30. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said
complaint also, the Plaintiff had given assurances,
acknowledgement and promises to make payment of
the pending dues to the Defendant with a request to
withdraw the said pending complaint. Such written
acknowledgment issued by the Plaintiff (through
Directors of Partners of Plaintiff) assured the
Defendant that the pending payments of the Defendant
would be cleared as soon as they receive the payment
from the end user which was Northern Railways.
31. However, the Defendant refused to withdraw the
complaint as he had been falsely induced to not pursue
its previous complaints as stated hereinabove. The
Defendant accordingly informed the Plaintiff that upon
receipt of payment and compounding of the offences
the said pending complaints will be withdrawn.
32. It is submitted that the Plaintiff through its director
Mr. Mayank Gupta had assured the Defendant vide
letter dated 23.12.2013 and letter dated 05.02.2014
that the outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.
3,17,10,185/- shall be released in favour of the
Defendant as soon as they receive the payment of their
own outstanding dues from the Northern Railways. The
Defendant was hopeful of getting the outstanding
money being paid by Plaintiff on such assurances,
acknowledgement and promises, however, the Plaintiff
backtracked on their promises did not pay even a
single money for the works performed and the
materials supplied to the Plaintiff.
33. It is submitted that in order to wriggle out the
aforesaid liability of Rs. 3,17,10,185 and further as a
counterblast to the aforesaid liability, the Plaintiff has
falsely filed the present Civil Suit bearing C.S.
(COMM) No. 1200/2016 seeking recovery of an
amount of Rs. 2,08,74,475 against the Defendant.
Needless to say that the said suit filed by the Plaintiff is
merely a counterblast to the criminal complaint filed
against the Plaintiff by the Defendant and further to
create and concocted defence for themselves against
the aforesaid liability.‖
7. Along with the written statement, the Memorandum of Understanding
and the Letters dated 13.04.2023, 23.12.2023 and 05.02.2014 have also been
sought to be introduced by the Defendants with the application under Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
8. Reply to the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC
has been filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that all these facts
were within the knowledge of the Defendants and they ought to have
mentioned these facts while filing the written statement. It is stated that the
attempt of the Defendants is to alter the nature of the suit which is not
permitted under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
9. It is further stated that no reason is forthcoming from the Defendants
as to why these facts were not initially stated more so when they had filed
the previous suit prior to the filing of the written statement in this case.
10. It is stated that the pleadings regarding the documents which are
purportedly being introduced describes the facts which date prior to the
filing of the present suit. It is also stated by the Plaintiff that in an earlier suit
being CS(OS) 1403/2014 (now re-numbered as CS(COMM) 560/2016),
which is also a suit filed by the Plaintiff-JV for recovery of Rs.
1,27,84,762.60/-, these documents were sought to be inserted by the
Defendants by moving an application being I.A. No. 1229/2023 under Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC. However, the said application was rejected by this
Court vide Order dated 01.03.2023 with costs of Rs.15,000/-. The Plaintiff,
therefore, states that the present application should not be entertained.
11. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
12. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17
of the CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is
settled law that courts should have a liberal approach in allowing
amendment of pleadings, however the same cannot be allowed in every case.
The Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 256, has held as under:
―33. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the
courts should be liberal in allowing applications for
leave to amend pleadings but it is also well settled that
the courts must bear in mind the statutory limitations
brought about by reason of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Acts; the proviso appended to
Order VI Rule 17 being one of them. In North Eastern
Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511, the law has been laid
down by this Court in the following terms : (SCC p.
517, para 16).
―16. Insofar as the principles which govern the
question of granting or disallowing amendments under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time)
are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6
Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at
any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda
Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363]
which still holds the field, it was held that all
amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two
conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other
side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between
the parties. Amendments should be refused only where
the other party cannot be placed in the same position
as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the
amendment would cause him an injury which could not
be compensated in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan
Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC
166].)‖
34. In the case of P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha
reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525, the above observations
were reiterated by this Court and in the light of the
same, this Court in para 9 held as under:
―9. By reason of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1976, measures have been taken for
early disposal of the suits. In furtherance of the
aforementioned parliamentary object, further
amendments were carried out in the years 1999 and
2002. With a view to put an end to the practice of filing
applications for amendments of pleadings belatedly, a
proviso was added to Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as
under:
―17. Amendment of pleadings.--The court may at any
stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms
as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made
as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the
real questions in controversy between the parties :
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court
comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence,
the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.‖‖
35. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai
reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712, this Court referred to
the following passage from A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd.
v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967
SC 96 wherein, it was held as follows:--
―4. This Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar
Valley Corpn. [AIR 1967 SC 96 : (1966) 1 SCR 796]
held:
―The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not
allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new
cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or
cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal [[L.R.] 19
Q.B. 394 : 56 LJ QB 621]. But it is also well
recognised that where the amendment does not
constitute the addition of a new cause of action or
raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a
different or additional approach to the same facts, the
amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the
statutory period of limitation : See Charan Das v. Amir
Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50 : ILR 48 Cal 110] and L.J.
Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR
1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438]
The principal reasons that have led to the rule last
mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules
of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and
not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith
[[L.R.] 26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and
secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on
the statute of limitation when what is sought to be
brought in by the amendment can be said in substance
to be already in the pleading sought to be amended
(Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant
[ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved
in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
The expression ‗cause of action' in the present context
does not mean ‗every fact which it is material to be
proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed' as was said in
Cooke v. Gill [[L.R.] 8 C.P. 107 : 42 LJCP 98 : 28 LT
32] in a different context, for if it were so, no material
fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no
one would want to change or add an immaterial
allegation by amendment. That expression for the
present purpose only means, a new claim made on a
new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was
taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corpn. Ltd.
[[1962] 2 All ER 24 (CA)] and it seems to us to be the
only possible view to take. Any other view would make
the rule futile. The words ‗new case' have been
understood to mean ‗new set of ideas' : Dornan v. J.W.
Ellis and Co. Ltd. [[1962] 1 All ER 303 (CA)] This
also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No
amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of
ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any
party by lapse of time.‖
Again in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC
393] this Court held : (SCC p. 399, para 22)
―The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly
wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised
in the interest of justice, the law of limitation
notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching
discretionary powers is governed by judicial
considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought
to be the care and circumspection on the part of the
court.‖
―4. It is clear from the foregoing summary of the main
rules of pleadings that provisions for the amendment of
pleadings, subject to such terms as to costs and giving
of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to
meet exact situations resulting from amendments, are
intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for
defeating them. Even if a party or its counsel is
inefficient in setting out its case initially the
shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by
appropriate steps taken by a party which must no
doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense
caused to the other side from its omissions. The error
is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial
steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued.‖......‖
*****
37. Thus, the Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to
amend the plaint, written statement or file an
additional written statement. It is, however, subject to
an exception that by the proposed amendment, an
opposite party should not be subject to injustice and
that any admission made in favour of the other party is
not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings should
be allowed liberally which are necessary for
determination of the real controversies in the suit
provided that the proposed amendment does not alter
or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of
which the original lis was raised or defence taken.
38. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in
negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually
destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed
to be incorporated by means of amendment to the
pleadings.‖
13. Applying the law to the facts of the present case, the present suit is at
the initial stage as the issues have not been framed. The Order dated
01.03.2023 passed by this Court rejecting the application under Order VI
Rule 17 of the CPC in CS(OS) 1403/2014 (now re-numbered as
CS(COMM) 560/2016), was that the suit was at the final stage of arguments
and the Defendants therein sought to introduce the documents at the final
stage. The said fact does not apply in the present case.
14. It is now well settled that courts must be liberal in allowing the
amendments to pleadings, especially when the same is sought for at the early
stage of the suit unless the amendment sought tries to raise a claim that has
been barred by limitation. Such is not the fact in this case. The Defendants
only seek to introduce the fact that the Defendants had filed a suit being
CS(COMM) 97/2017 before this Court against the Plaintiff for recovery of
Rs.3,17,10,185/- along with interest.
15. The stand of the Defendants in the said suit is that they do not owe
any money to the Plaintiff. It is stated that a Memorandum of Understanding
was entered into between the parties and that there are correspondences by
the Plaintiff to the Defendants acknowledging this fact.
16. In the opinion of this Court, the interest of justice lies in allowing the
said application.
17. In addition, the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1, after analysing several
case laws has summarised the law regarding amendment of pleadings as
under:-
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a
subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for
application thereof are satisfied and the field of
amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.
The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2
Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence
negatived.
71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are
necessary for determining the real question in
controversy provided it does not cause injustice or
prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is
apparent from the use of the word ―shall‖, in the latter
part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties.
71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the
other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear
admission made by the party which confers a right
on the other side, and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred
claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a
valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to
be allowed unless:
71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is
sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the
claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor
for consideration.
71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.
71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or
71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid
defence.
71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of
pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical
approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal
especially where the opposite party can be
compensated by costs.
71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to
pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in
rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for
amendment should be allowed.
71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce
an additional or a new approach without introducing a
time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to
be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars
in the plaint.
71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a
ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of
delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be
allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately
for decision.
71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the
suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely
new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the
amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the
amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in
the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already
pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is
required to be allowed.
71.11. Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required to be
liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in
mind the fact that the opposite party would have a
chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such,
where the amendment does not result in irreparable
prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite
party of an advantage which it had secured as a result
of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the
amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where
the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively
adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between
the parties, the amendment should be allowed.
(See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay
Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine
Del 1897] .)‖
18. The present suit is a commercial suit. Order XI Rule 1 Sub-Rule 7 &
10 of the CPC which has been inserted after the amendment reads as under:-
―(7) The defendant shall file a list of all documents and
photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession,
control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with
the written statement or with its counter-claim if any,
including--
(a) the documents referred to and relied on by the
defendant in the written statement;
(b) the documents relating to any matter in question in
the proceeding in the power, possession, control or
custody of the defendant, irrespective of whether the
same is in support of or adverse to the defendant's
defence;
(c) nothing in this rule shall apply to documents
produced by the defendants and relevant only--
(i) for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's
witnesses,
(ii) in answer to any case setup by the plaintiff
subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his
memory.
xxx
(10) Save and except for sub-rule (7)(c)(iii), defendant
shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were
in the defendant's power, possession, control or
custody and not disclosed along with the written
statement or counter-claim, save and except by leave of
court and such leave shall be granted only upon the
defendant establishing reasonable cause for non-
disclosure along with the written statement or counter-
claim;‖
19. A perusal of the Order XI Rule 1 Sub-Rule 7 & 10 of the CPC shows
that under the said provisions, the Defendant can be permitted to introduce
further documents only with the leave of the court and the Defendant cannot
produce those documents in an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC. For this purpose, a separate application under Order XI Rule 10 of the
CPC will have to be filed by the Defendants and leave has to be sought from
the Court for which the Plaintiff will have his own objections which will
have to be dealt with in that application.
20. In view of the above, the amendment to the written statement is
permitted. However, the documents filed by the Defendants are not taken on
record.
21. With these observations, the application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 1200/2016
22. List on 28.01.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JANUARY 23, 2026
hsk
