Additional Documents Can Be Disclosed Even At Argument Stage If Reasonable Cause Is Shown: Calcutta High Court
The Court observed that while the Commercial Courts Act mandates the disclosure of all documents at the time of filing, Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC provides the Court with the discretion to permit subsequent disclosures.
Justice Aniruddha Roy, Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has observed that a plaintiff’s right to present their case is a vested right in adversarial litigation, ruling that additional documents may be disclosed even as late as the argument stage.
The Bench clarified that since the legislature fixed no outer time limit for this discretion, there is no absolute bar to bringing new evidence on record after the initial filing stages, provided the applicant establishes a "reasonable cause".
The Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy observed, “In an adversarial litigation, right to present its case by the plaintiff is a vested right. On a meaningful reading of the relevant provisions laid down under Rule 1 to Order XI of CPC, this Court is further of the view that on a proper construction and interpretation of Sub-Rule 5 thereto, since there is no outer limit fixed by the legislature and also there being no absolute bar even after Sub-Rule 4 stage, subject to reasonable cause being shown in the application, the plaintiff can be permitted to disclose additional documents even at the argument stage.”
Advocate Rajarshi Dutta appeared for the Plaintiff, while Advocate Aruni Guha appeared for the Defendant.
Facts
This matter involved a commercial suit where the defendant failed to file a written statement. Consequently, the defendant forfeited the right to file a written statement under the amended provisions of Rule 1 to Order VIII of CPC, 1908.
The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff’s witness concluded. Although the court marked the suit as undefended, the defendant chose not to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. In this matter, the parties placed reliance on an order dated February 25, 2025, which a Co-ordinate Bench passed.
The plaintiff filed an application that contained several specific prayers. The plaintiff requested leave to disclose documents annexed as "C-1" to "F" and sought permission to prepare an Additional Judges' Brief of Documents containing those items within four weeks.
Additionally, the plaintiff sought leave to file an Affidavit of Evidence for a second witness, within six weeks and requested permission for him to adduce oral evidence. The plaintiff also asked that the costs of the application be treated as costs in the cause.
Contentions of the Parties
Counsel referred to Sub-Rules 1 through 3 of Rule 1, Order XI of the CPC, noting that these provisions established a mandatory obligation for a plaintiff to disclose all documents in their possession at the time of filing. It was further submitted that Sub-Rule 4 provided an opportunity for plaintiffs in urgent filings to seek leave to rely on additional documents within 30 days of filing the suit, provided they submitted a declaration on oath.
It was argued that under Sub-Rule 5, the Court maintained the discretion to grant leave for the disclosure of documents not previously produced, provided the plaintiff established "reasonable cause" for the initial non-disclosure.
The plaintiff maintained that although the documents were not disclosed with the plaint, they were extremely relevant to proving the case and were specifically required to address queries raised by the Court.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed, “On a meaningful reading of Sub-Rule 1 to Sub-Rule 3 to Rule 1, it appears to this Court that after the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short “CC Act”), it is a mandatory obligation upon the plaintiff to disclose all documents at the time of filing of the suit with the plaint which are in power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit in the manner and mode as stated in the Rules.”
The Court said that Sub-Rule 4 allowed a plaintiff in an urgent filing to seek leave to file additional documents within 30 days of the suit, provided they submitted a declaration on oath regarding the disclosure of all documents in their possession. Sub-Rule 5 prohibited a plaintiff from relying on documents that were in their custody but not disclosed with the plaint, unless the Court granted leave based on the establishment of a "reasonable cause".
The Court found that the legislature included Sub-Rule 5 to allow judicial discretion, enabling the disclosure of documents even after the Sub-Rule 4 period had expired.
The Court also added that there was no absolute bar to disclosing additional documents after the initial 30-day stage, as the code specifically provided for this through Sub-Rule 5.
“The causes shown in the application are found to be just, cogent and reasonable. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded a case that it requires these additional documents to be brought on suit record to meet the queries raised by the Court at the argument stage. The worthiness and veracity of these additional documents cannot be assessed or adjudicated upon at this stage and the same can only be adjudicated upon at the time of final trial of the suit. At this Order XI Rule 1 stage of CPC as amended, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the extent whether to allow or not to allow these additional documents to be brought on record”, it held.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application filed by the Plaintiff and allowed him to disclose the additional documents.
Cause Title: Usha Martin Limited vs Balurghat Technologies Limited [IA No. GA-COM/1/2025, Old No. CS/69/2023 In CS-COM/491/2024]
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Advocates Rajarshi Dutta, Labanyasree Sinha, Sarbesh Choudhury and Rohit Singh Parmar
Defendant: Advocate Aruni Guha