M/S NOIR FASHIONS PVT. LTD. v. NISHIMA SUARABH PATHAK

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by District Judge, Commercial Court-04, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in CS (COMM.) No. 3841/2021, titled as M/s Noir Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Nishima Suarabhi Pathak, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 11 Rule 1 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’) for placing on record additional documents along with the replication. 1.[1] The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondent is defendant in the commercial suit.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the replication was filed on 04.08.2022 within thetimegranted by the TrialCourt andalongwith the replication, the Respondent sought to place on record documents to answer thecaseset up by thedefendantin thewritten statement.Hestatesthat no standcontraryto the caseset up in theplaint is soughtto beraisedby filing these documents. 2.[1] He states that the documents filed by the plaintiff along with the replicationcan betaken onrecord. Herelies uponthejudgmentsofthis Court in Mahesh Chaudhri & Ors. v. IMV India Pvt. Ltd., 2019: DHC:3698, Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. & Anr. v. Bank of India & Ors., 2019: DHC:5253, Khurmi Associates (P) Ltd. v. Maharishi Dayanand Cooperative Group Housing Society, 2022 SCC OnLineDel1011 and Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1457.

3. In reply, learnedcounselfor theRespondentstatesthat theRespondent herein is concerned that it shall have no opportunity to deal with the said additionaldocuments atthisstage oftheproceedingsas its(defendant’s)right to file documents already stands closed. He states that merely by filing an affidavit of admission denial of documents, Respondent will not be able to rebut the said documents. He states that if the Respondent is given an opportunity of filing its own documents to counter these additional documents, he has no objection if this application filed by the Petitioner is allowed.

4. In response, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he has no objection if the Respondent herein as well is granted an opportunity to file additional documents to rebut the documents which the Petitioner seeks to bring on record.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.

6. In view of the statement made by the parties and in view of the judgments ofthis Courtnotedaboveand morespecifically BennettColeman (supra), theimpugned orderdated 02.06.2023 is set asidewith theconsentof the parties on the following conditions: (a)The documentsfiled by the Petitioner alongwith the replication dated 04.08.2022 are directed to be taken on record. (b)The Respondent will file its affidavit of admission denial of the Petitioner’sadditionaldocuments directed to betaken on record bythis order, on or before 31.08.2023.

(c) The Respondent will file its own documents to counter the said documents on or before 31.08.2023. (d)ThePetitionerwillfileits affidavit ofadmission denialof theadditional documents filed by the Respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from receipt of the additional documents. (e) Neither party will be granted any extension of time.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed.

8. The pending application stands disposed of.