Suresh Rastogi vs. Mohd. Adil Faiyaz Ansari

Facts

The petitioner, Suresh Rastogi, a plaintiff in a suit before the Trial Court, filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) read with Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC. The application sought permission to place additional documents related to GST invoices concerning the transaction in question and to examine a witness. The petitioner contended these documents were crucial to prove the transaction and that GST was paid and availed by the defendant. The defendant had already been proceeded against ex-parte. The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the documents were in the public domain and thus available to the plaintiff at the suit's institution, and that the Chartered Accountant's possession of the documents did not warrant their late filing. The matter was then fixed for final arguments.

Held

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order. The Court held that the Trial Court should have appreciated that the plaintiff is a senior citizen and that the additional documents were referenced in the plaint, list of documents, and list of witnesses. The Court noted that the restriction under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC against filing additional documents is not absolute and can be permitted with the leave of the Court, stating that a rigid interpretation would render the provision nugatory. It was also observed that since the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte, there would be no prejudice. Therefore, the Court directed the Trial Court to permit the plaintiff to place the additional documents on record and to allow him to examine the concerned official for their proof. The issue of whether the documents were available in the public domain or with the Chartered Accountant was considered in light of the plaintiff's age and the references in the suit documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for permission to place additional documents on record and examine a witness, considering the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(5) and Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the additional documents, pertaining to GST records and invoices, were crucial to establish the transaction and the payment and availing of GST. He contended that these documents were either in the public domain or with his Chartered Accountant. He also highlighted that the suit referenced these documents in the plaint, list of documents, and list of witnesses. Furthermore, he emphasized that the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte, thus no prejudice would be caused. He relied on the precedent of Vijay Kumar Varshney vs. Longlast Power Products Ltd. & Anr. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 3775), asserting that the restriction under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC is not absolute and can be permitted with the court's leave. The petitioner also pointed out his senior citizen status (93 years old) and that the suit was initially instituted with due reflection of these documents. Respondent's Arguments: No arguments were recorded on behalf of the respondent as none appeared despite service.