Vinesh Sharma vs. Nirmala Jain

Facts

The petitioner, Vinesh Sharma, is the defendant in two recovery suits filed by M/s Vijay Cotswin Pvt Ltd. and Nirmala Jain. The suits were registered as C.S.(Comm) No.114/2023 and CS (Comm) No.115/2023. The petitioner filed written statements, and issues were framed on May 8, 2024. A Local Commissioner was appointed to record evidence, but no evidence has been recorded yet. The plaintiffs filed applications under Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to place on record GST-R1, affidavits/certificates under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and a copy of a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC. These applications were opposed by the petitioner but allowed by the Trial Court on August 17, 2024, leading to the present petitions.

Held

The Court held that while a plaintiff can always maintain an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, permission to place documents on record is granted only upon establishing a reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint. The Court acknowledged that no witness had yet testified and evidence recording was pending. Regarding the nature of the documents, the Court noted that the plaintiff had issued a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC seeking GST Forms, to which the defendant did not respond. The Court found that after serving such a notice and receiving no response, a party is permitted not only to draw an adverse inference but also to seek permission to lead secondary evidence. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the petitioner (CASA 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. and TTK Prestige Limited), stating that the nature of documents in those cases was different. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had been able to establish a reasonable cause for the delay in filing these documents. Exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court found no merit in the petitions, deeming the Trial Court's findings not perverse. The petitions were dismissed in limine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to place on record documents (GST-R1, affidavits/certificates under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC) after the filing of the plaint, despite the plaintiff's 'Statement of Truth' asserting disclosure of all documents in possession, without the plaintiff establishing a reasonable cause for non-disclosure at the time of filing the plaint, as required by Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since the plaintiff had filed a 'Statement of Truth' with the plaint, claiming all relevant documents were disclosed and annexed, the Trial Court should not have allowed the subsequent filing of documents without the plaintiff demonstrating a reasonable cause for their initial non-disclosure. Reliance was placed on CASA 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. vs. VLCC Personal Care Ltd. and TTK Prestige Limited vs. Baghla Sanitaryware Private Limited & Ors. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents (plaintiffs). However, the Court noted that after issuing a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, a party can seek permission to lead secondary evidence if there is no response. The Court also observed that the relevant GST record was downloaded from the GST Portal, and an affidavit/certificate was sought regarding the use of electronic devices for downloading. The notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was issued after the plaint was filed.