Madhya Pradesh High Court
Western Coal Field Limited vs M/S Seth Mohanlal Hiralal Construction ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39862
1 MP-3023-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3023 of 2025
WESTERN COAL FIELD LIMITED AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S SETH MOHANLAL HIRALAL CONSTRUCTION CO. A
REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM AT ITARSI
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Bhatnagar - Advocate for the petitioners through Video
Conferencing.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed against the order dated 16.4.2025 in COMMS/08/2022 passed
by District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, whereby the Commercial
Court has allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 7 CPC
and directed the defendant to produce original agreement dated 25.08.2006.
It is pertinent to mention here that after enactment of Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, this case was transferred to Commercial Court, Bhopal.
2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the respondent/plaintiff had
filed a civil suit No. 02B/2016 against the petitioner/defendant before the
Additional District Judge, Betul on 20.03.2015 in which the plaintiff is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39862
2 MP-3023-2025
seeking decree for Rs. 1,22,31,638/- (One Crore Twenty-Two Lakh Thirty-
One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Eight) along with interest and costs,
which is presently pending before the VIII District and Additional Session
Judge, Bhopal, (Madhya Pradesh). After enactment of the Commercial
Courts Act, the suit was transferred to the Commercial Court, Bhopal, M.P.
by order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the Learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Betul. Petitioners/defendants have filed a written statement
along with a copy of the agreement dated 25.08.2006 before the Commercial
Court Bhopal. The issues were framed in the year 2016 and the evidence was
led by both the parties in the year 2023-24. Thereafter, the matter was listed
for final arguments. The final arguments were concluded on dated
12.03.2025. Consequent thereon, the respondent/plaintiff brought forth the
application seeking a direction qua the petitioner/defendants to bring the
agreement dated 25.08.2006 on record. The respondent/plaintiff sought
permission to prove agreement document filed by the petitioner/ defendants
wherein, respondent/plaintiff claimed that only a photocopy of the agreement
was filed by the petitioner/defendants, and that the original agreement was
not submitted or marked as an exhibit. The petitioner filed a reply to the
application stating inter alia that it is impermissible to seek documents at
such a belated stage of the proceedings as the final arguments in the said
matter have already been concluded by the VIII Additional District and
Session Judge, Bhopal. The said application was an afterthought and
intended to cure evidentiary /apparent defects in the Respondent/plaintiff's
case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39862
3 MP-3023-2025
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/
respondent never filed copy of agreement dated 25.08.2006 with the plaint.
After transferring of the case at Bhopal, he filed application for production of
original agreement dated 25.08.2006 which was opposed by the defendant on
the ground that under Order XI Rule 5 CPC it is mandatory to file original
documents with the plaint in the Commercial Court.
4 . Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of both the
parties was recorded before the Court below and written statement has also
been filed. Both the parties were given full opportunity to address oral
documents, and the case was likely to reserve for pronouncement of
judgment. At the stage of final pronouncement of judgment, by the
impugned order, learned Court below has allowed the application filed by
the respondent/plaintiff under Order XI Rule 7 CPC and directed the
petitioner/ defendant to produce the original agreement and also held that this
is a necessary document for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
The main defense of the petitioner is that plaintiff never filed copy of
agreement dated 25.8.2006 before the Commercial Court but the said defense
was turned down by allowing the application under Order XI Rule 7 CPC.
The plaintiff has also not given appropriate reasons for not filing the copy of
agreement with the plaint. Therefore, it is prayed, that the impugned order
passed by the learned Court below be set aside and the Miscellaneous
Petition be allowed.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of the petitioner
and having carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39862
4 MP-3023-2025
record as well as the relevant provision under Order 11 Rule 6 of the C.P.C
which relates to power of Court to receive any document in evidence which
has not been produced when plaint was presented.
6. It is profitable to consider the relevant provision of Disclosure,
Discovery and inspection of documents in suits before the Commercial
Division of a High Court or a Commercial Court under Order XI Rules 5 of
the Civil Procedure Code which reads as under:-
"(5) Production of documents-(1) Any party to a
proceeding may seek or the Court may order, at any
time during the pendency of any suit, production by any
party or person, of such documents in the possession or
power of such party or person, relating to any matter in
question in such suit."
7 . It is very well clear that it shall be lawful for the Court, at any time
during the pendency of any suit, to order the production of such of the
documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in
such suit. No inference can be drawn from the above rule that the court have
no power to direct to produce the document which was not produced with the
plaint.
8 . Order XI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the
court's power to direct a party to produce documents relevant to a suit, even
if they weren't initially produced with the plaint or written statement. It
allows the court to order the production of documents in the possession or
power of any party, at any time during the pendency of the suit, if those
documents are deemed relevant to the matter in question.
9 . The agreement dated 25/8/2006 was not disputed between the
parties. Copy of the agreement was submitted by the defendant along with
his written statement. Having taken note of the submissions of learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39862
5 MP-3023-2025
counsel of the petitioner and also the relevant provisions of law, and the
reason assigned by the learned trial Court, this Court finds that the impugned
order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality calling for any
interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
10. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in
the order passed by the learned Court below warranting interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
MSP
