Madras High Court

M.Sundararajan vs M/S.Ramesh Marketing on 17 November, 2025

                                                                                       CRP.No.2434 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        Dated:17.11.2025

                                                           CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                CRP.No.2434 of 2025
                                             and CMP.No.13966 of 2025
                     M.Sundararajan
                     Proprietor,
                     M/s.Overdrives,
                     S.F.No.702, Opposite to Velankanni Church,
                     Coimbatore Main Road,
                     Mettupalayam,
                     Coimbatore – 641 301.
                                                                                           ... petitioner
                                                                vs.

                     M/s.Ramesh Marketing,
                     Rep. By his power of agent,
                     Mr.B.Senthil,
                     Having Office at 235-B, Ooty Main Road,
                     Mettupalayam,
                     Coimbatore – 641 301.
                                                                                        ... Respondent


                     PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
                     of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 05.02.2025 in
                     I.A.No.2 of 2024 in COS.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the learned
                     Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam.




                     1/12




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )
                                                                                             CRP.No.2434 of 2025




                                  For Petitioner         : Mr.P.A.Sai Govindaraja

                                  For Respondent         : M/s.M.S.Seshadri



                                                   JUDGMENT

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order

passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the

respondent/plaintiff seeking reception of additional documents which were

not filed along with the plaint.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money

based on business transaction with the petitioner. According to the

respondent, it is a distributor of ''Mobil Lubricants'' and it supplied its

products to petitioner/defendant on credit basis. The petitioner had credit

dealings with the respondent from 21.03.2019 to 19.02.2021 and in that

connection, the petitioner owed a sum of Rs.8,81,768 to the respondent.

Apart from the credit dealings, the petitioner received a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- on 07.03.2017 from the respondent towards Marketing

Assistance Programme Agreement (MAP). As per the agreement, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

petitioner has to sell 12,600 litres of products mentioned in the agreement

within a period of 36 months. The petitioner did not reach the agreed turn

over as per the terms of the agreement and hence it was liable to return the

amount proportionately to the respondent together with applicable GST etc.,

In that account, a sum of Rs.2,06,925/- was due from the petitioner to the

respondent, hence the suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,23,963/-

which represents the Principal amount due to the respondent and the interest

compounded.

3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner by denying the

various averments found in the plaint. It was specific case of the petitioner,

during the period 2018-2019, it returned certain quantities of supplied

products to the respondent. It was also stated that under the “MAP”

agreement, only a sum of Rs.31,000/- was payable to the respondent and

the same was confirmed by the Business Manager of the respondent.

4. The trial in the suit commenced, as PW.1 was examined on

behalf of the respondent. The petitioner cross examined PW.1 by raising

questions regarding return of materials and invoices raised in the name of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

defendant. In these circumstances, the respondent filed interlocutory

application seeking to receive the following documents which were not filed

along with the plaint.

“1. 21.3.2019 to 19.02.2021 - copy of the Tax

Invoices raised by the plaintiff firm in favour of the defendant

and counter signed by the defendants.

2.10.02.2020 – copy of the Invoice raised by the

defendant for return of materials/goods.”

5. The petition to receive the document filed by the respondent

was allowed by the trial Court on condition that documents could be

received subject to proof and relevancy. Aggrieved by the said order, the

revision is filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of Code of Civil Procedure, as

applicable to the Commercial Courts, the plaintiff shall not be allowed to

rely on any documents which were in its possession and power at the time

of filing of the plaint and was not produced along with the plaint except

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

with the leave of the Court and such leave shall not be granted unless

plaintiff establishes reasonable cause for non disclosure of those documents

at the time of filing of plaint. The learned counsel submitted that in the

affidavit filed in support of the instant application, the respondent has not

given any acceptable reasons for its failure to produce these documents and

therefore, the trial Court committed an error in allowing the application.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would

submit that during the course of cross examination of PW.1, the petitioner

put questions regarding return of the goods and invoices raised in the name

of defendant, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file this application.

The learned counsel also submitted that the documents produced by the

plaintiff are very essential to decide the main controversy in the suit.

8. During the course of the arguments, a preliminary objection

was also raised with regard to the maintainability of the revision by drawing

the attention of this Court to Section 8 of Commercial Courts Act, which

bars revisions against the interlocutory orders passed in Commercial suit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

9. The provision in ordinary statute barring revisional power of this

Court cannot take away the power conferred on this Court under Article 227

of the Constitution of India. However, the power of revision shall be

exercised in rarest of rare cases with circumspection. The maintainability of

the revision against the orders passed by the Commercial Court was

considered by me in Shivnarayan Sabu Vs. Sabu Trade Private Limited

reported in (2022) 8 MLJ 368 , wherein, after referring to the decided case

laws, it was observed as follows:

“13. The careful consideration of the above decisions by the High Court of Gujarat and High Court of Telangana make it clear that the supervisory power available to High Court cannot be taken away by ordinary statute and hence even the orders passed by the commercial court can also be revised by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the said revisional power can be exercised only in rarest of rare cases with circumspection. Therefore, I hold that the revision is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India not withstanding Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act. However, it is made clear that only in cases where it is established, order impugned cannot be challenged and corrected, in a regular appeal against decree

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

passed by Commercial Court, without much inconvenience and irreparable injury to the party applying for Revision, the revision can be entertained.”

10. Therefore, it is clear that there is no total bar for this Court

to exercise the supervisory power. However, the same shall be exercised in

rarest of rare cases, where the order impugned in revision is allowed to

stand will cause irreparable injury to the party applying for revision or the

same is incapable of being corrected in a regular appeal.

11. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of money based on

credit transaction between the petitioner and respondent, the document No.1

mentioned above namely the invoices raised by the plaintiff in favour of the

defendant and counter signed by the defendant will certainly enable the

respondent to prove the quantities of the product supplied by it to the

defendant, therefore, it is a vital document to prove the case of the plaintiff.

Likewise, document No.2 invoice raised by the defendant for return of the

material goods is also vital document to disprove the defence raised by the

defendant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

12. As far as the second document is concerned, it is relating to

the defence raised by the petitioner/defendant in the written statement that

he returned certain quantities of goods to the respondent. Therefore, the

defence raised by the defendant necessitated filing of all these invoices

[Document No.2]. In such circumstances, it will be covered by the

exception found in Order XI, Rule 1 (1) (c) (ii). Since these invoices

[Document No.2] sought to be produced by the plaintiff are answer to the

case set up by the defendant in his written statement, it will come under one

of the exceptions to order XI Rule 1 (1) (c) and accordingly, it will not be

governed by the rigour of Order XI Rule (5).

13. In view of the matter, there may not be any impediment for

allowing the plaintiff to produce document No.2. In fact, in the affidavit,

the plaintiff had averred that due to the cross examination of PW.1 by the

defendant regarding return of the materials and invoices raised in the name

of defendant, it was compelled to produce these documents.

14. As far as document No.1 is concerned, it is nothing but tax

invoices raised by the plaintiff firm in favour of the defendant, counter

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

signed by the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff seeks recovery of money

based on credit account. The account maintained by the plaintiff was

produced by it as document No.1 along with the plaint. In the written

statement, the defendant raised a defence that it returned certain quantities

of product supplied to it. The document No.1 filed along with this petition

for reception of additional document is only supplemental to the plaint

document No.1 and the invoices sought to be produced by the plaintiff can

very well be correlated with the credit account, which was filed as

document No.1 with the plaint. Therefore, the document No.1 namely, the

invoices filed by the plaintiff are not entirely new or alien document, these

documents are only ancillary to the account maintained by the plaintiff. In

the light of the pleadings of the parties, this Court feels that the tax invoices

produced by the plaintiff are vital documents to decide the main controversy

in the suit.

15. The defendant in its counter has stated that the plaintiff

produced these manipulated document with the delay. Whether the

documents produced by the plaintiff are genuine documents or manipulated

documents is a question to be decided at the time of final disposal based on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

evidence. At the stage of considering the application for reception of

document, the genuineness of the document cannot be considered. In this

regard, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in

Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar G.B reported in (2021) 13

SCC 71. The relevant observation reads as follows:

“10.3. Even the reason given by the learned Commercial Court that the invoices being suspicious and therefore not granting leave to produce the said invoices cannot be accepted. At the stage of granting leave to place on record additional documents the Court is not required to consider the genuineness of the documents/additional documents, the stage at which genuineness of the documents to be considered during the trial and/or even at the stage of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 that too while considering prima facie case. Therefore, the learned Commercial Court ought to have granted leave to the plaintiff to rely on/produce the invoices as mentioned in the application as additional documents.”

16. Taking into consideration, there is a delay on the part of

the plaintiff in producing documents, this Court feels that the petition filed

for reception of additional documents should have been allowed by

imposing cost, on the plaintiff. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 08:39:28 pm )

directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner/defendant as cost,

within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case, the

respondent failed to pay the cost to the petitioner within the time stipulated,

it is not entitled to rely on the documents produced along with interlocutory

application. If the order is complied within the time fixed by this Court, the

documents can be received subject to proof and relevancy, as ordered by

trial Court. The order impugned in this revision is confirmed with the