Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd DECEMBER, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S DHAWAN BOX SHEET CONTAINERS PVT LTD .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Aayush Malhotra and Mr. Shobhit Garg, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sushant Kishore, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. The present application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of the CPC 1908 has been filed by the Plaintiff for placing on record additional documents.
2. The present Suit is one for Recovery of ₹1,30,15,020/- along with pendente lite and future interest and costs.
3. The facts of the case reveals that the Plaintiff Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing plain and printed corrugated boxes. It is stated that the Plaintiff operates its business from one of its premises at A-455, RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ‘insured premises). It is stated that in order to secure its industrial assets, the Plaintiff obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No. 350304/11/10, from the Defendant herein. It is stated that the Policy was valid from 16.05.2010 to 15.05.2011. It is stated that under the said Policy, assets aggregating to Rs.9,85,00,000/- were insured by the Defendant covering the building, plant and machinery, electrical installations and stocks. It is stated that in order to secure its assests, the Plaintiff paid a premium of Rs.1,02,561/-. It is stated that during the validity of the policy, the sum insured was further enhanced by Rs.50,00,000/- on account of increase in the value of plant and machinery.
4. It is stated that on 24.12.2010 at about 1:15 PM, a fire broke out at the insured premises of the Plaintiff, allegedly due to an electrical short circuit in the rear shed of the unit. It is stated that the fire spread rapidly, necessitating the intervention of the local fire brigade and police authorities, and could be brought under control only after considerable effort. As a result of the said fire incident, extensive damage was caused to the Plaintiff’s building, plant and machinery, electrical fittings and stocks. It is stated that a substantial portion of the insured premises was completely gutted in the fire.
5. It is stated that the Plaintiff promptly intimated the Defendant Company about the occurrence of the fire and lodged its claim in accordance with the terms of the policy of the insurance. It is stated that the Defendant appointed surveyors to assess the loss. It is stated that the Surveyors visited the site and carried out inspection and assessment. It is stated that upon evaluation, the Plaintiff quantified its total loss on account of the fire at Rs.5,09,68,804/-, comprising damage to the building, plant and machinery, stocks and electrical installations, and submitted the requisite claim form and supporting documents to the Defendant.
6. According to the Plaintiff, despite full cooperation and compliance with all policy requirements, the Defendant failed to settle the claim in accordance with law and withheld the amount payable under the Policy. Consequently, the Plaintiff, pursuant to a Board Resolution dated 24.12.2012, instituted the present suit through its authorised Director seeking recovery of Rs.1,30,15,020/-, along with pendente lite and future interest and costs.
7. Summons were issued and Written Statement was filed. Issues were framed on 24.08.2016. Cross-examination of PW-2 is going on and the Plaintiff’s evidence has not yet concluded.
8. This application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been filed by the Plaintiff for placing on record additional documents. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the documents sought to be placed on record vide the present application were not in physical possession or custody of the Plaintiff and they have been procured from PW-2 during the examination of PW-2. It is stated in the Application that during the course of trial, and particularly during cross-examination of PW-1, questions were put by the Defendant regarding the absence of certain documents which, according to the Defendant, were necessary to substantiate the Plaintiff’s claim of purchase and delivery of goods prior to the fire. The Plaintiff has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Application seeking permission to place on record the following documents: a) Goods Receipt (GR) copies issued by the transporter in respect of consignments supplied by M/s M.D. Papers Pvt. Ltd. to the Plaintiff during the period commencing from 10.10.2010 till the date of the fire; and b) A duly stamped copy of the bank account statement of M/s M.D. Papers Pvt. Ltd., evidencing payments received from the Plaintiff towards supply of the said goods.
9. It is stated in the Application that the documents now sought to be filed were not in possession of the Plaintiff at the time of filing of the present Suit. It is specifically stated that these documents had been submitted earlier to the insurance surveyor appointed by the Defendant Insurance Company for the purpose of processing and assessment of the Plaintiff’s claim and, therefore, when the plaint was filed and documents were compiled, the Plaintiff did not have access to these documents.
10. It is stated that the Goods Receipt copies are contemporaneous transport documents generated by the transporter, bearing acknowledgment of delivery by the consignee, and are ordinarily returned to the consignor after delivery of goods. According to the Plaintiff, these GRs were issued along with the original invoices, copies of which have already been placed on record along with the plaint (specifically referred to as pages 110–125 of the original list of documents). It is, therefore, stated that the GRs are intrinsically connected to, and corroborative of, the invoices already on record.
11. Further, the Plaintiff has stated that the bank statement of M/s M.D. Papers Pvt. Ltd. has been procured to demonstrate actual payment by the Plaintiff to the said supplier for the goods in question, thereby lending further evidentiary support to the Plaintiff’s case that the purchases were genuine, the goods were delivered, and the stock existed prior to the fire incident.
12. It is further stated in the Application that the documents sought to be brought on record were recently procured from PW-2 and from officials of M/s M.D. Papers Pvt. Ltd., who were the original consignor of the goods.
13. Reply to the said application has been filed by the Defendant opposing the present Application. It is the case of the Defendant that the present Suit was instituted in 2019, issues have already been framed, and the matter is at the stage of evidence and cross-examination of Plaintiff Witnesses is going on. It is stated that the application has been filed only after shortcomings in the Plaintiff’s evidence were exposed during crossexamination. The Defendant has disputed the Plaintiff’s explanation for nonfiling of the documents earlier and has asserted that the Goods Receipt copies and bank statements relate to old transactions and were always within the Plaintiff’s knowledge and reach. It is contended that the Plaintiff had ample opportunity to file these documents at the time of filing of the suit and that the present application is nothing but an attempt to fill lacunae at an advanced stage of trial. Emphasis has also been placed on the strict disclosure regime applicable to commercial suits.
14. It is stated that the present Suit is a commercial Suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is stated in the reply that unlike ordinary civil suits, commercial litigation proceeds on a strict disclosure regime which mandates complete, candid, and upfront disclosure of all documents at the stage of institution of the suit. It is stated that the Plaintiff was under a statutory obligation to file all documents in its power, possession, or control along with the plaint and to disclose even those documents which may not support its case. It is, therefore, the case of the Defendant that permitting the Plaintiff to introduce material documents after issues have been framed and evidence has commenced would dilute the rigour of the commercial procedure and defeat the very purpose for which this special regime was enacted. It is, therefore, stated that the application ought to be dismissed.
15. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
16. At this stage it is relevant to reproduce Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the same reads as under: “ ORDER XI DISCLOSURE, DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS IN SUITS BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION OF A HIGH COURT OR A COMMERCIAL COURT
1. Disclosure and discovery of documents. …… (5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non–disclosure along with the plaint.”
17. While it is correct that commercial litigation is governed by a strict disclosure regime, the said provision itself contemplates circumstances where additional documents may be permitted to be brought on record, subject to the satisfaction of the Court and on such terms as it may deem fit.
18. Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act does not impose an absolute bar on filing of documents after the institution of the suit. The provision vests discretion in the Court to permit additional documents where the party seeking such permission is able to demonstrate that the documents were not in its power, possession, custody or control at the relevant time, or that sufficient cause exists for their non-disclosure earlier. Though the discretion is to be exercised cautiously in commercial matters it is not intended to defeat substantive justice.
19. In the present case, the Plaintiff has offered a plausible and satisfactory explanation for not placing the documents on record at the time of filing of the present Suit. The Goods Receipt copies sought to be introduced are transport documents generated by third-party transporters and ordinarily remain with the consignor or transporter. Similarly, the bank account statement pertains to M/s M.D. Papers Pvt. Ltd., a third party, and could not have been unilaterally accessed by the Plaintiff without cooperation from the said entity.
20. The Plaintiff has specifically stated that these documents were earlier furnished to the surveyor appointed by the Defendant Insurance Company during the claim assessment process and were, therefore, not retained by the Plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit. The explanation gains further credence from the fact that the invoices corresponding to these transactions were already disclosed along with the plaint, indicating that the Plaintiff had not suppressed the underlying transactions.
21. In the opinion of this Court, the documents now sought to be placed on record are not new or extraneous materials introduced to alter the nature of the claim. They are corroborative in character and directly relate to documents already forming part of the record. The Goods Receipts are intrinsically connected to the invoices already exhibited, and the bank statement merely evidences payment against the said invoices. Their introduction does not change the foundation of the Plaintiff’s case but only seeks to substantiate it.
22. The contention of the Defendant that the application is an attempt to fill lacunae cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. A distinction must be drawn between curing inherent defects in a case and placing on record material which was genuinely not available earlier and has surfaced during the course of trial. The documents in question have been sought to be introduced after they were procured during the examination of PW-2 and from the concerned third party, and not merely because certain questions were put in cross-examination.
23. The strict disclosure regime under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, though intended to ensure procedural discipline and expeditious adjudication, is not meant to operate as a straitjacket. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that procedural law is a handmaid of justice and not its mistress, and that procedural rules, even in commercial litigation, must yield where their rigid application would result in exclusion of relevant evidence and lead to a miscarriage of justice. Where a party demonstrates bona fide inability to produce documents earlier, and the documents are relevant, contemporaneous and corroborative of material already on record, the Court would be justified in adopting a pragmatic approach, subject to appropriate safeguards to neutralise any prejudice to the opposite party.
24. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the trial is still at the stage of Plaintiff’s evidence. No prejudice of an irreversible nature would be caused to the Defendant if the documents are taken on record, particularly when the Defendant would have full liberty to cross-examine the relevant witnesses on these documents and to lead evidence.
25. While the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates strict adherence to disclosure timelines, the regime is not intended to operate as a punitive mechanism to shut out relevant evidence where the interests of justice warrant its consideration. Procedural discipline cannot be elevated to a point where it eclipses the adjudicatory function of the Court, especially when adequate safeguards can be imposed to neutralise any possible prejudice.
26. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the Plaintiff for permitting the additional documents to be taken on record.
27. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
28. The documents mentioned in the application shall be taken on record, subject to the Plaintiff paying costs of Rs.50,000/- to the Defendant, within a period of two weeks.
29. It is made clear that the fact that this Court has permitted the Plaintiff to file the documents is no indication that the veracity of these documents has been accepted. The documents will have to go through the rigours of admission/denial in accordance with law.
30. The Defendant shall be at liberty to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witnesses with respect to the said documents and to take all permissible defences in accordance with law.
31. The Application is disposed of. List before the Ld. Joint Registrar on 09.03.2025 for further proceedings.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J DECEMBER 22, 2025 Rahul