Karnataka High Court
M/S Jsm Corporation Private Limited vs M/S Brunton Developers on 10 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 04.06.2025
Pronounced on : 10.06.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.10679 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. JSM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
3RD FLOOR, TODI BUILDING
MATHURDAS MILL COMPOUND
LOWER PAREL WEST, MUMBAI - 400 013
ALSO, AT:
SHIRO LOUNGE BAR
UNIT NO.222, 3RD FLOOR, UB CITY
NO.24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT
EMBASSY POINT, 1ST FLOOR, 150
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE / DIRECTOR
MR. SANJAY MAHTANI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. M/S. BRUNTON DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
THE FALCON HOUSE
NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. T.B.VENKATESH.
2. M/S. PRESTIGE CUISINE
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
UNIT NO.207, COPPER ARCH
NO.83, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. T.B.VENKATESH.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.K.NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD 05.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN COM. OS NO.
835/2023 BY THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-83) AT ANNX-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 04.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/defendant in Commercial Original Suit No.835
of 2023 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order
dated 05-02-2025 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru allowing I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiff
seeking to produce documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC.
2. Heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri C.K. Nandakumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are
plaintiffs 1 and 2. The plaintiffs institute a suit in Commercial
O.S.No.835 of 2023 for eviction and delivery of vacant possession
of the suit schedule property. The issue in the lis does not pertain
to merit of the matter before the concerned Court. The defendant
files its written statement on 06-11-2023 denying all the plaint
4
averments without any counter claim. On 18-07-2024 issues are
framed by the concerned Court. On 02-08-2024 the plaintiffs lead
evidence of PW-1 and on 15-10-2024, PW-1 is fully
cross-examined. At that stage, the plaintiffs file I.A.No.III invoking
Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC seeking leave of the concerned Court to
produce four documents. The concerned Court, by its order dated
05-02-2025, permits production of documents by allowing the
application. The petitioner/defendant is before this Court
challenging the said order, on the score that the documents could
not have been permitted to be produced at that stage of the
proceedings.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Ajesh
Kumar S would vehemently contend that the plaintiffs are trying to
set up a new case and cover the shortcoming in the evidence led
thus far. He would contend that the concerned Court has
erroneously held that the documents are produced in order to
counter the assertions made by the petitioner/defendant in the
written statement and would submit that, that cannot be the scope
of Order XI Rule 1 of CPC. The order so passed allowing the
5
application runs counter to the spirit of Commercial Courts Act, as it
clearly bars production of documents at a later stage. He would
seek that the petition be allowed and the order be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri C.K.Nandakumar
appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would vehemently refute
the submissions contending that Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) of the CPC
permits such an exercise made by the plaintiffs. It is only to
counter the defence put up by the defendant, the documents are
sought to be marked. What are the documents that are marked and
their veracity could be tested only in the evidence. He would
contend that there is no perversity in the order passed by the
concerned Court, for this Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
6
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
events are all a matter of record. They would not require any
reiteration. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass with regard
to tenability of the order passed by the concerned Court. The
dispute between the two leads the plaintiffs to file a commercial suit
for eviction of the tenant, the petitioner. After cross-examination of
PW-1, the plaintiffs prefer an application under Order XI Rule 1 of
the CPC. Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC reads as follows:
"1. Disclosure and discovery of documents. - (1)
Plaintiff 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 plaint, including:
(a) Documents referred to and relied on by the plaintiff in the
plaint;
(b) Documents relating to any matter in question in the
proceedings, in the power, possession, control or custody
of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the plaint,
irrespective of whether the same is in support of or
adverse to the plaintiffs case;
(c) nothing in this rule shall apply to documents produced by
plaintiffs and relevant only--
(i) for the cross-examination of the defendant's
witnesses, or
(ii) in answer to any case setup by the defendant
subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his
memory."
(Emphasis supplied)
7
The statutory provision is couched in permissive and
enabling terms and mandates that the plaintiff shall file a list
of documents in its power, possession, control and custody
along with the plaint, but renders certain flexibility, it thus
carves out exception to the general mandate of early
disclosure. Sub-clause (c) directs that nothing in this Rule shall
apply to the documents produced by the plaintiffs and relevant only
for cross-examination of defendant's witnesses in answer to any
case set up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint. The
plaintiffs, in the case at hand, invoke Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) to prefer
the application. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the written
statement and during the cross-examination certain factors are
brought out by the defendant with regard to tenancy or
communications regarding tenancy. It, therefore, becomes
necessary to file the application seeking production of documents.
The application comes to be allowed by the following reasoning:
".... .... ....
REASONS
7. Point No. 1: - Perused the records this application is
filed at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff
intended to produce the additional documents i.e., statement of
account of the 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff, Email
8
correspondences between the plaintiff and defendant showing
the monthly net sales of the restaurant run by the defendant
and the details of the payments made by the defendants to the
plaintiffs and partnership deed of the plaintiffs. The document
that are sought to be produced by the plaintiffs are bank
statements which date back to 2016. Since they are old
documents, the plaintiffs couldn't trace them immediately and
file with the plaint and further the plaintiffs are seeking to
produce the statement of accounts showing that the rents paid
by the defendant from 2016 till the defaults began in 2018 and
email correspondences, which are crucial to affirm the rent
understanding between the plaintiffs and defendant and further
taken a contention that, in their written statement raised certain
claims and defenses which necessitate the production of the
documents accompanied with this application to substantiate the
plaintiffs case and to counter the defendant's allegation. Further
one of the documents that is sought to be produced is in
response to a question that was posed by the Defendants
counsel during cross-examination of PW.1. These documents
were in the custody of his accountant Mr. Sunil Swamy.
8. On the other hand the defendant contention that,
the email correspondence and bank statement are nor
supported by a certificate under Section 63 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. Non production of
certificate at the stage is not a ground to reject the
application. The certificate is compulsory for marking of
the documents. At this stage, the question is whether the
additional document produced by the plaintiff cannot be
allowed, whether it is helpful for adjudication of this
case. Of course these documents are produced at belated
stage. But these documents are produced in order to
counter assertions made by the Defendant in the written
statement.
9. Order 11 Rule 1 clause c (ii) reads as under:
"In answer to any case set up by the defendant
subsequently to filing of the plaint."
10. The plaintiff intended to produce the photocopy
of the acknowledgment of registration of firm certificate
and Deed of Partnership and reconstitution. The plaintiff
9
has not explained why he has not produced the original
deed of reconstitution partnership deed. However, at this
stage we cannot consider admissibility of document in
evidence. The question before this court as above stated
whether the production of documents can be allowed or
not.
11. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has not
stated regarding these documents in plaint averments.
But he has clearly stated that these documents are
required to answer the case setup by the defendant. The
provision 11 Rule 1 clause c (ii) provides that, the
plaintiff can produce the document to answer the case
setup by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, in
order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, it is just
and proper to allow the application in the ends of justice.
However, inconvenience caused to the defendant is to be
compensated by imposing cost. Hence, I answer this
point in the Affirmative.
12. Point No. 2: - Accordingly, I pass the following
order.
ORDER
IA No. III filed by the Plaintiff Under Order XI Rule 1 (5)
of CPC is allowed with cost of Rs. 2,500/-."
(Emphasis added)
The concerned Court records, by a reasoned order, the tenor of
Order XI Rule 1 Clause (c)(ii) and holds that the statute itself
permits documents to be produced. The concerned Court further
holds that it is not the stage to consider what kind of document that
is produced, but it is only the production of document that is to be
looked into. In the light of the statute permitting such production,
whether the order of the concerned Court would require
interference is what is necessary to be noticed.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy
reliance upon two judgments, one of which is that of the Apex Court
and the other is of Bombay High Court. The Apex Court
interpreting Order XI Rule 1 CPC, in a judgment rendered in
SUDHIR KUMAR v. VINAY KUMAR G.B.1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
9.3. It is true that Order 11 Rule 1CPC as applicable to
the commercial suits brought about a radical change and it
mandates the plaintiff to file a list of all documents, photocopies
of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody,
pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint and a procedure
provided under Order 11 Rule 1 is required to be followed by the
plaintiff and the defendant, when the suit is the commercial suit.
Order 11 Rule 1, as applicable to commercial suits reads as
under:
"ORDER 11
DISCLOSURE, DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
IN SUITS BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION OF A HIGH COURT OR
A COMMERCIAL COURT
1. Disclosure and discovery of documents. -
(1) Plaintiff 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
plaint, including:
(a) documents referred to and relied on by the
plaintiff in the plaint;
(2021) 13 SCC 71
(b) documents relating to any matter in question
in the proceedings, in the power, possession, control or
custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the
plaint, irrespective of whether the same is in support of
or adverse to the plaintiff's case;
(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents
produced by plaintiffs and relevant only--
(i) for the cross-examination of the defendant's
witnesses, or
(ii) in answer to any case set up by the defendant
subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh
his memory.
(2) The list of documents filed with the plaint
shall specify whether the documents in the power,
possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are
originals, office copies or photocopies and the list shall
also set out in brief, details of parties to each document,
mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of
custody of each document.
(3) The plaint shall contain a declaration on oath
from the plaintiff that all documents in the power,
possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining
to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings
initiated by him have been disclosed and copies thereof
annexed with the plaint, and that the plaintiff does not
have any other documents in its power, possession,
control or custody.
Explanation. - A declaration on oath under this
sub-rule shall be contained in the Statement of Truth as
set out in the Appendix.
(4) In case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may
seek leave to rely on additional documents, as part of
the above declaration on oath and subject to grant of
such leave by court, the plaintiff shall file such additional
documents in court, within thirty days of filing the suit,
along with a declaration on oath that the plaintiff has
produced all documents in its power, possession, control
or custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of
the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff and that the
plaintiff does not have any other documents, in its
power, possession, control or custody.
(5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on
documents, which were in the plaintiff's power,
possession, control or custody and not disclosed along
with plaint or within the extended period set out above,
save and except by leave of court and such leave shall
be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing
reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the
plaint.
(6) The plaint shall set out details of documents,
which the plaintiff believes to be in the power,
possession, control or custody of the defendant and
which the plaintiff wishes to rely upon and seek leave for
production thereof by the said defendant.
(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 counterclaim
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 set up by the plaintiff
subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh
his memory.
(8) The list of documents filed with the written
statement or counterclaim shall specify whether the
documents, in the power, possession, control or custody
of the defendant, are originals, office copies or
photocopies and the list shall also set out in brief, details
of parties to each document being produced by the
defendant, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and
line of custody of each document.
(9) The written statement or counterclaim shall
contain a declaration on oath made by the deponent
that all documents in the power, possession, control or
custody of the defendant, save and except for those set
out in sub-rule (7)(c)(iii) pertaining to the facts and
circumstances of the proceedings initiated by the
plaintiff or in the counterclaim, have been disclosed and
copies thereof annexed with the written statement or
counterclaim and that the defendant does not have in its
power, possession, control or custody, any other
documents.
(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 counterclaim, 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
counterclaim.
(11) The written statement or counterclaim shall
set out details of documents in the power, possession,
control or custody of the plaintiff, which the defendant
wishes to rely upon and which have not been disclosed
with the plaint, and call upon the plaintiff to produce the
same.
(12) Duty to disclose documents, which have
come to the notice of a party, shall continue till disposal
of the suit."
Order 11 Rule 1(3) provides that the plaint shall
contain a declaration on oath from the plaintiff that all
documents in the power, possession, control or custody
of the plaintiff, pertaining to the facts and circumstances
of the proceeding initiated by him have been disclosed
and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that the
plaintiff does not have other documents in its power,
possession, control or custody. As per the Explanation
under Order 11 Rule 1(3) a declaration on oath under
this sub-rule shall be contained in the Statement of
Truth as set out in the Appendix. Appendix I with
respect to the Statement of Truth reads as under:
"APPENDIX I
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
(Under First Schedule, Order 6 Rule 15-A and
Order 11 Rule 3)
I ... the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. I am the party in the above suit and
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I am sufficiently conversant with the facts
of the case and have also examined all relevant
documents and records in relation thereto.
3. I say that the statements made in ...
paragraphs are true to my knowledge and statements
made in ... paragraphs are based on information
received which I believe to be correct and statements
made in ... paragraphs are based on legal advice.
4. I say that there is no false statement or
concealment of any material fact, document or record
and I have included information that is according to me,
relevant for the present suit.
5. I say that all documents in my power,
possession, control or custody, pertaining to the facts
and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by me
have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with
the plaint, and that I do not have any other documents
in my power, possession, control or custody.
6. I say that the abovementioned pleading
comprises of a total of ... pages, each of which has been
duly signed by me.
7. I state that the Annexures hereto are true
copies of the documents referred to and relied upon by
me.
8. I say that I am aware that for any false
statement or concealment, I shall be liable for action
taken against me under the law for the time being in
force.
Place:
Date:
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, ...... do hereby declare that the statements
made above are true to my knowledge. Verified at
[place] on this [date].
DEPONENT."
Therefore, the declaration on oath shall be part of the plaint.
The plaintiff has to declare on oath that all documents in its/his
power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the facts
and circumstances of the proceedings, initiated by him/it have
been disclosed and the copies thereof annexed with the plaint,
and that he does not have any other documents in his power,
possession, control or custody. Therefore, as such it is
mandated by Order 11 Rule 1 for the plaintiff to disclose and
produce all the documents in his power, possession, control or
custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the
proceedings.
9.4. However, the additional documents can be permitted
to be bought on record with the leave of the court as provided in
Order 11 Rule 1(4). Order 11 Rule 1(4) provides that in case of
urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional
documents as part of the above declaration on oath [as
provided under Order 11 Rule 1(3)] and subject to grant of such
leave by court, the plaintiff shall file such additional documents
in court, within thirty days of filing the suit, along with a
declaration on oath that the plaintiff has produced all documents
in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the
facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by the
plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not have any other
documents, in its power, possession, control or custody.
9.5. Order 11 Rule 1(5) further provides that the
plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which
were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or
custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the
extended period set out above, save and except by leave
of court and such leave shall be granted only upon the
plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure
along with the plaint. Therefore, on combined reading of
Order 11 Rule 1(4) read with Order 11 Rule 1(5), it
emerges that (i) in case of urgent filings the plaintiff may
seek leave to rely on additional documents; (ii) within
thirty days of filing of the suit; (iii) making out a
reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with plaint.
9.6. Therefore, a further thirty days' time is
provided to the plaintiff to place on record or file such
additional documents in court and a declaration on oath
is required to be filed by the plaintiff as was required as
per Order 11 Rule 1(3) if for any reasonable cause for
non-disclosure along with the plaint, the documents,
which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or
custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore,
the plaintiff has to satisfy and establish a reasonable
cause for non-disclosure along with plaint. However, at
the same time, the requirement of establishing the
reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents
along with the plaint shall not be applicable if it is
averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that those
documents have been found subsequently and in fact
were not in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or
custody at the time when the plaint was filed. Therefore
Order 11 Rule 1(4) and Order 11 Rule 1(5) applicable to
the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect
to the documents which were in plaintiff's power,
possession, control or custody and not disclosed along
with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the
reasonable cause in non-disclosure along with plaint may
not arise in the case where the additional documents
sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered
subsequent to the filing of the plaint."
(Emphasis supplied)
The learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to contend that
the Apex Court has clearly barred production of documents at a
later stage. The learned counsel perhaps has ignored to read
between the lines in paragraphs between 9.5 and 9.6. The Apex
Court itself holds in paragraph 9.6 that the requirement of
establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents
along with the plaint may not arise in a case where additional
documents sought to be produced and relied upon have been
discovered subsequent to filing of the plaint. Therefore, it is not
an unambiguous embargo to produce any document which
was not produced along with the plaint. The exceptional
circumstance is carved out in clause (c) of Order XI Rule 1 and one
of the clauses is in answer to the case set up by the defendant.
Therefore, the said judgment would not become applicable to the
facts of the case nor help the petitioner in any way. Same goes
with the judgment of the High Court of Bombay relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of KHANNA RAYON
INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SWASTIK ASSOCIATES
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom.1372.
9. It becomes apposite to refer to a judgment rendered by
another Bench of the High Court of Bombay, answering an identical
claim in its judgment rendered in the case of EDELWEISS
SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND v. FUTURE CORPORATE
RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED2. In the said judgment the High
Court of Bombay holds as follows:
".... .... ....
16. Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, quoted hereinabove,
mandates that the plaintiff shall file list of all documents and
photocopies of all documents in its power, possession, control or
custody along with the plaint, irrespective of whether the same
are in support of or adverse to the case of the plaintiffs. The
statement of truth, being a declaration on oath, under Order XI
Rule 1(3) of the CPC, also assumes significance. The statement
of truth being a declaration on oath is specified in the appendix
to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is an admitted position
that the plaintiffs in the present case indeed filed such
statement of truth along with the plaint, thereby declaring that
they had disclosed all documents that were in their power,
possession, control and custody, pertaining to the facts and
circumstances of the proceedings initiated. Order XI Rule 1(4) of
the CPC, makes an exception in urgent cases where the plaintiff
is permitted to file additional documents in Court within 30 days
of filing of the suit, while, Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC refers
to power of the Court to grant leave to file such documents that
were in the power, possession, control and custody of the
plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the suit, which could not be
filed at the time of filing the suit, only upon establishing
reasonable cause for non-disclosure of such documents along
with the plaint. Apart from this, Order XI Rule 1(1)(c) of CPC
carves out an exception in three situations where the Rule itself
would not apply. In the facts and circumstances of the present
Interim Application No.2742 of 2023 in Commercial Suit No.164 of 2022 decided
on 11-08-2023
case, the plaintiffs are invoking one such situation, under Order
XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, which stipulates that nothing in
the said Rule will apply to the documents produced by the
plaintiffs and relevant only to answer any case set up by the
defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint.
17. The defendant has taken a stand in this case
that the aforesaid exception carved out under Order XI
Rule 1(1)(c) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial
suits, can be invoked only at the stage of trial and not at
any interlocutory stage. But, this Court is not in
agreement with the defendant on that count, for the
reason that there is substance in the contention raised on
behalf of the plaintiffs that Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of
the CPC, applicable to commercial suits, does not use the
expression 'defence' and uses the words 'any case set up
by the defendant' subsequent to filing of the plaint. The
defendant can certainly set up its case at the
interlocutory stage while resisting the interim / ad-
interim reliefs. In a rare case, the Court may proceed to
even record evidence for deciding the interlocutory
matter, in which case, Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(i) and (iii)
of the CPC could also be invoked to claim that the Rule
would not apply to documents produced by the plaintiffs
after filing of the plaint. To that extent, plaintiffs are
justified in claiming that they could invoke Order XI Rule
1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, to justify production of documents
along with the present application for amendment.
... ... ...
20. The plaintiffs have taken a very clear stand in
respect of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC and they have
not made any serious attempt to establish reasonable
cause for non-disclosure of the said documents with the
plaint. Specific reliance is placed on Order XI Rule
1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits,
by claiming that nothing in the entire Rule itself would
apply to the said documents now sought to be placed on
record on behalf of the plaintiffs, as the said documents
are required to be placed on record to answer the case
set up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the
plaint."
(Emphasis supplied)
Though the Court was answering an application under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC, the observations as afore-quoted would become
squarely applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand. I am
in respectful agreement with what is held by the learned single
Judge of the High Court of Bombay. In that light, I deem it
appropriate to hold that Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC clearly
permits production of documents by the plaintiffs in answer
to the case set up by the defendant, which ostensibly will be
after filing of the plaint.
10. Thus, the impugned order far from being perverse or
arbitrary, is found on sound legal reasoning of the concerned Court
in allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule
1 of the CPC.
Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp/CT:SS
