Paul Components Private Limited v. Hi Tech Arai Private Limited

1. This is an application by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 3 and Order XI Rule 6(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). It came up for the first time before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 5 December 2023.

2. The application seeks permission to inspect the originals of the documents filed by the defendant. The application was allowed in part by the learned Joint Registrar by order dated 5 December 2023.

3. The matter has been listed before this Court as learned Counsel for the plaintiff made a request before the learned Joint Registrar that the Plaintiff should be permitted to inspect the originals of certain documents which were filed in a redacted format by the defendant. As the defendant objected, the matter has been placed before the Court.

4. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to IA 19809/2023, in terms of the permission granted under which, the said documents were placed on record.

5. IA 19809/2023/2023 specifically sought permission to place redacted copies of the aforesaid documents on record. The reason for the said prayer is to be found in paras 3 and 4 of the application, which reads thus:

6. Notice was issued on the aforesaid IA and the plaintiff/ nonapplicant was given time to file reply. No reply having being filed by the plaintiff, the matter came up before the learned Joint Registrar on 21 November 2023. The order passed on the said date specifically notes that the application was being allowed “as the plaintiff has no objection”.

7. This statement, coupled with the fact that the plaintiff did not deem it necessary even to file reply to IA 19809/2023, obviously indicates that the plaintiff acknowledged that the details which were redacted in the documents filed by the defendant were, confidential in nature, and also allowed the documents in the said format to be placed on record and form part of the record.

8. Mr. Sibal submits that, in these circumstances, it would clearly be impermissible for the plaintiff now to seek permission to inspect the unredacted documents.

9. Mr. Sibal also points out that, in I.A. 19809/2023, it was specifically clarified by the defendant that it was not relying on their redacted parts of the aforesaid documents.

10. In response, Mr. Bindra submits that the no objection which was granted by his client, as recorded in the order dated 21 November 2023, was only for filing of the redacted documents, and did not amount to any concession with respect to inspection of the original unredacted copies. He points out that the stage for inspection of the details has not arisen till then. He also relies upon Order XI Rule 3 of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act.

11. To my mind, having heard learned Counsel, the request of the plaintiff is manifestly unreasonable. The defendant did not place the redacted documents on record without obtaining leave of the Court. A specific application for placing the redacted documents on record, being IA 19809/2023, was filed. The application specifically averred that the redacted details were confidential and that the defendant was not relying on the said redacted details to support his case. The plaintiff did not even deem it appropriate to file a response to the application despite grant of opportunity. An unconditional no objection was granted on 21 November 2023, to take the said documents on record. I am completely unable to accept Mr. Bindra’s submission that the no objection should be treated as limited to taking the documents on record and that, despite the no objection, the plaintiff should be permitted to inspect the unredacted originals.

12. There is no question of a party being permitted to inspect documents other than those which have been taken on record.

13. The reliance, by Mr. Bindra, on Order XI Rule 3 of the CPC is also, in my view, misconceived. The Rule specifically permits parties to complete inspection of documents which are disclosed. The defendant, for reasons of confidentiality, sought permission to place documents containing redactions on record. The documents which were disclosed by the defendant were, therefore, the redacted documents. The plaintiff having agreed to the redactions, to the fact that redactions related to confidential data and having given an unconditional no objection for taking the aforesaid documents on record, there is no question of the plaintiff being now entitled to inspect the original unredacted copies.