M/S Jains Alliance And Palms Venture PVT LTD vs. M/S The Hardware Plaza
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Jains Alliance and Palms Venture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Jains Housing (petitioners/defendants) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 26, 2024, passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The impugned order allowed an application filed by the respondent (plaintiff) under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The suit, Commercial O.S. No. 143/2024, was filed for recovery of Rs. 10,77,198/-. The plaintiff sought to produce emails and a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharathiya Shiksha Adhiniyam, 2023, which were not initially furnished with the plaint or made available for admission and denial by the defendants. The trial court permitted the production of these documents.
Held
The High Court held that while the impugned order of the trial court did not warrant outright interference, the plaintiff was remiss in not producing the documents at the earliest stage. The Court emphasized the purpose of Commercial Courts to ensure speedy disposal and that documents should not be produced in installments. The plaintiff's failure to produce the documents with the plaint, when they were available, was a breach of duty. However, instead of setting aside the order, the Court decided to put the plaintiff on terms. The writ petition was disposed of by upholding the trial court's order, but with a direction for 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. It was clarified that if the cost was not paid, the plaintiff would not benefit from the trial court's 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 documents belatedly, thereby depriving the defendants of an opportunity to respond to them? (Question of law and fact, turning on Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC). Petitioner's contention: The plaintiff was expected to produce all documents along with the plaint. The trial court mechanically allowed the application without considering that Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC mandates the furnishing of all documents with the plaint, and the defendants were deprived of the opportunity to respond. Respondent's contention: All suit documents were produced with the plaint. The emails sought to be produced were inadvertent omissions and represented correspondence between the plaintiff and defendants. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, aims for speedy disposal and ease of doing business, and such documents should be allowed.
Sections Cited
Order 11 Rule 1(5), Section 63
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.143/2024 have filed this petition challenging an order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which an application filed by the plaintiff Under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC was allowed. NC: 2024:KHC:44834
The suit in Com.O.S.No.143/2024 was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.10,77,198/-. The suit was contested by the defendant and when the suit was ready for evidence, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC to permit it to produce emails and certificate under Section 63 of Bharathiya Shiksha Adhiniyam, 2023. These documents were not furnished at the time of filing the plaint and was 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 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. NC: 2024:KHC:44834
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 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 who NC: 2024:KHC:44834 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 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 of trial court but 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. NC: 2024:KHC:44834 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.: 1 Sl No.: 51
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.