Charanpaaduka Industries PVT LTD Through Its Ar Vaibhav Gupta vs. Ms Saras Knit INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Charanpaaduka Industries Pvt Ltd, is the defendant in a commercial suit and is aggrieved by an order dated March 10, 2025, which dismissed its application to place additional documents on record. The application was purportedly filed under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), though it should have been under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC. During arguments, the petitioner restricted its request to placing GST details on record, which were mentioned in the affidavit of their witness, DW-2 Mr. Inderjeet Singh. The petitioner contended these documents were not in their possession but were being produced by the witness himself and were of impeccable character. The respondent/plaintiff, MS Saras Knit India, appeared on advance notice and stated they had no objection to this limited request.

Held

The Court held that the petition should be partly allowed. The reasoning was based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the proposed documents (GST details), and crucially, the concession given by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The Court permitted the defendant to place on record the relevant documents pertaining to GST. However, it was explicitly stated that these documents would still need to be proved in accordance with the law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary issue regarding the admissibility of the documents was resolved by allowing their placement on record, subject to future proof.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner/defendant should be permitted to place additional GST documents on record in a commercial suit, despite the application being filed under an incorrect provision of the CPC and the documents being sought after the initial stage of filing pleadings? The petitioner argued that the GST details were mentioned in the witness affidavit and were of impeccable character. They further contended that these documents were not within their control or possession but were being produced by the witness himself. The petitioner relied on the fact that the respondent/plaintiff had no objection to the limited request. The respondent/plaintiff, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, stated they would not object to the petitioner's limited request to place the GST documents on record.