ISLAMUDDIN vs KAPOOR

CMM 1137/22 01/11/22

[C. HARI SHANKAR, J.] [ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

• Order 7, Rule 14 and Order 11, Rule 1 (5) CPC Additional documents on record Filing of Held, while examining application under Order 11, Rule 1 (5) court not entitled to pronounce on correctness of genuineness of documents which petitioner seeks to introduce Petitioner required to show whether sufficient cause existed for having failed to file additional documents with plaint On facts, failure to file three invoices and handwritten documents along with plaint explained by pointing out that plaint filed during currency of COVID-19 pandemic, during which it was difficult to contact counsel In interests of justice, petitioner allowed to place documents on record subject to costs of Rs. 15,000/- Respondent also entitled to file additional or amended written statements to meet said document

[Relevant Paras]

10. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar has correctly drawn my attention to the following passage from Sudhir Kumar1 in which the Supreme Court has clearly held that while examining the application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC the court is not entitled to pronounce on the correctness of the genuineness of the documents which the petitioner seeks to introduce:
“35. 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 XXXIX 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.”
The Court is therefore, only required to examine whether there is sufficient cause for the documents not having been filed along with the plaint. The evidentiary or other value of the document vis-a-vis the controversy in issue in the plaint, is a consideration alien to Order XI Rule 1(5).
11. Significantly, all that the petitioner is required to show under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC is whether the sufficient cause existed for the Petitioner having failed to file the additional documents with the plaint. If there is sufficient cause for the documents not been filed with the plaint, any subsequent or later delay in introducing the documents has not been regarded statutorily as a relevant consideration under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC. In the present case, the failure to file the three invoices and the hand written documents along with the plaint has been sought to be explained by pointing out that the plaint was filed during the currency of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which period it was difficult to contact the counsel. Though the learned District Judge has not chosen to believe this contention, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sugandhi4 persuaded me to, in the interests of justice, to allow the documents which the petitioner sought to place, on record to be so placed, subject to costs of ₹ 15,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within four weeks from today.
12. Needless to say, since additional documents have been sought to be placed on record, the respondent would also be entitled to file an additional or amended written statement to meet the said document.Any such request if made shall be allowed by the learned Commercial Court.

for more read the judgment click here 

judgement MD. ISLAMUDDIN VS S S KAPOOR DELHI HIGH COURT THE LAW LITERATES

all rights reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav tomar )