M/S Jains Housing And Construction LTD vs. M/S The Hardware Plaza
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Jains Housing and Construction Ltd. and M/s Jains Housing (Petitioners/Defendants) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The impugned order allowed an application (I.A.No.2) filed by the respondent (Plaintiff) under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The original suit (Com.O.S.No.88/2024) was filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.36,02,375/-. The respondent sought to produce emails as evidence, which were not furnished with the plaint and not made available to the defendants for admission and denial. The trial court allowed the plaintiff's application to produce these documents.
Held
The High Court held that while the impugned order allowing the plaintiff to produce the email correspondence does not warrant interference, the plaintiff ought to have been put on terms for filing a belated application. The Court reasoned that the purpose of Commercial Courts is speedy disposal and encouraging ease of doing business, requiring parties to understand the scope of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and conduct proceedings accordingly. The mandate under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC is to provide defendants an opportunity to respond to documents and avoid procrastination. Production of documents in installments is not permissible. The plaintiff failed in its duty to produce the documents at the earliest. Therefore, the Commercial Court should not have casually allowed the application but should have placed the plaintiff on terms. The writ petition was disposed of by upholding the trial court's order but directing the plaintiff to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant No.1 before the Commercial Court on the next date of hearing. Non-payment of cost would disentitle the plaintiff to the benefit of the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff's application under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC to produce email correspondence, which were not filed along with the plaint, thereby depriving the defendants of an opportunity to respond? Petitioner's Contention: The plaintiff was expected to produce all documents at the time of filing the plaint as mandated by Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC. Allowing the application mechanically deprives the defendants of a crucial opportunity to respond to these documents, hindering their ability to contest the case effectively. The trial court failed to consider the mandatory nature of the provision. Respondent's Contention: All suit documents were produced with the plaint. The emails sought to be produced are correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendants and were inadvertently not filed at the time of filing the suit. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, aims for speedy disposal and ease of doing business, and such correspondence is essential for a complete understanding of the dispute.
Sections Cited
Order 11 Rule 1(5), Order 14 Rule 1, Commercial Courts Act, 2015
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The defendant Nos.1 & 2 in Commercial O.S.No.88/2024 have filed this petition challenging an order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which an application (I.A.No.2) filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 (5) of CPC was allowed.
The suit in Com.O.S.No.88/2024 was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.36,02,375/-. The suit was contested by the NC: 2024:KHC:44835 defendant and when the suit was ready for evidence, the plaintiff filed a application under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC to permit it to produce emails. These documents were not furnished at the time of filing the plaint and were not made available to the defendants for admission and denial. The trial court in terms of the impugned order allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to produce those documents. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this court.
Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff was expected to produce these documents at the time of filing of the plaint. He contends that the defendant is deprived of an opportunity to respond to these documents. He contends that the trial court mechanically had allowed the application without having regard to the provisions of Order 11 rule 1(5) of CPC which makes it mandatory that all documents have to be furnished along with the plaint.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that all suit documents were produced along with the plaint and what is sought to be produced are email correspondence between plaintiff and the defendants. He contends that NC: 2024:KHC:44835 inadvertently these documents were not produced when the suit was filed.
The Commercial Courts are constituted with a definite purpose to provide speedy disposal of commercial disputes and to encourage ease of doing business. Therefore every person who participates in the proceedings before the Commercial Courts is expected to understand the scope and purport of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and also conduct the proceedings accordingly. The purpose of Order 14 Rule 1 mandating that a person filing a claim before the Commercial Court should produce all documents is to give opportunity to defendants to respond to those documents and to avoid unnecessary procrastination of the proceedings.
There cannot be production of documents in installments, one at the stage of filing the suit and other at the time of leading evidence. In the case on hand, the plaintiff wjp was expected in law to produce the documents at the earliest point of time, failed in its duties to do so. It is not the case of the plaintiff that these documents were not available when the suit was filed. Therefore the Commercial Court could not have NC: 2024:KHC:44835 casually allowed the application, but must have placed the plaintiff on terms so as to defer similar such practice.
In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER Though the impugned order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference but the plaintiff deserves to be put on terms for filing a belated application. Consequently the writ petition is disposed off upholding the order passed by the trial court and directing the plaintiff to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the defendant No.1 before the Commercial Court on the next date of hearing. It is made clear that if cost is not paid, the plaintiff will not have the benefit of the impugned order passed by the trial court. (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.