Delhi High Court: In the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 31-01-2024, allowing the respondent to place certain documents on record which was unpaid invoices, proof of deliveries and a letter dated 24-08-2019, Shalinder Kaur*, J., held that impugned order was entirely against the compliance of provision under Order XI Rule 1(5) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and spirit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’) which was accordingly set aside and the documents brought on record vide application of the respondent under Order XI Rule 1(5) of CPC were directed to be taken off the record.
In an instant case, the respondent on 12-06-2017 entered an agreement with the petitioner for supply of toiletries to the petitioner monthly for distribution and utilization of the same in its chain of hotels. However, various disputes arose between the parties, consequently, the respondent filed a commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 53,83,366/- along with future and pendente lite interest @ 24% per annum, against the petitioner. It was stated that the statement of truth as per Order VI Rule 15-A and Order X Rule 1 of CPC was also filed with the plaint.
Accordingly, on 21-11-2022, the petitioner filed its written statement. Subsequent thereto, the respondent on 01-03-2023 moved an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of CPC to place certain additional documents on record. The petitioner filed its reply to the said application on 27-04-2023, whereby, it opposed the additional documents to be taken on record.
The Trial Court vide order dated 31-01-2024 allowed the application of the respondent seeking to place on record the additional documents.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent after 14 months from the date of institution of the suit, only when the matter was listed for framing of issued and case management hearing, moved an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC to place the additional documents on record and the Trial Court had erroneously allowed the application on the grounds, which were not tenable under the 2015 Act. It was further contended that all the documents taken on the records hold no relevance and would not support or enhance the case of the respondent.
The counsel for respondent submitted that, the respondent had been supplying the personal care products to the chain of hotels, i.e., Fab Hotels owned by the petitioner on Pan India basis, thus, the purchase orders and invoices were available at various offices of the respondent in different parts of the country. At the time of filing of the suit only a few invoices were available from the respondent, which were filed as sample invoices with an undertaking to provide the entire set of invoices at the relevant stage with the leave of the Court.
The Court after perusal of facts and contentions, noted that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution was not expected to examine the decision of the Court below acting as a Court of first appeal. The supervisory jurisdiction was not to correct an error of fact or a legal flaw thereby substituting its own decision on the facts and conclusion as arrived by the Court below. The Court then stated that, while allowing an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of CPC, it was pertinent to look for a reasonable cause, if it had been specifically pleaded and a good cause was made out, then the litigant could be permitted to place on record documents at a later stage.
The Court noted that the application of the respondent was silent about the documents which were consolidated summary statement of state wise ledger account, summary statement of the total invoices raised, payment received, credit note and outstanding amount to be brought on record but mentions only about three categories of documents which was unpaid invoices, proof of deliveries and a letter dated 24-08-2019. Thus, the application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of
The Court stated that there was merit in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that there was error in exercising its jurisdiction by the Trial Court, warranting supervisory correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Court was of the view that the impugned order is entirely against the compliance of provision under Order XI Rule 5 of CPC and spirit of the 2015 Act and thus was accordingly set aside and the documents brought on record vide application of the respondent were directed to be taken off the record.
[Casa 2 Stays (P) Ltd. v. VLCC Personal Care Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4587, decided on 05-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Ankur Mahindro, Harish Malik and Kushal Bhattacharjee, Advocates.
For Respondent: Manik Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
