Vandana Kapuria vs. D.D. Pradhan & Company PVT. LTD

Facts

The Petitioner, Vandana Kapuria, filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 12,55,817/- against the Respondent, D.D. Pradhan & Company Pvt. Ltd. The Trial Court had framed issues, and the plaintiff (Petitioner) had led evidence and was cross-examined. The defendant (Respondent) also led evidence and was cross-examined. Final arguments were concluded on August 5, 2023, and the matter was listed for judgment on August 19, 2023. On August 19, 2023, the Petitioner filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 2 and 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to lead evidence in rebuttal by re-examining PW-1 to prove emails, and to call for financial records from the Registrar of Companies and the GST Department. The Trial Court dismissed this application, stating it was an attempt to delay proceedings and fill lacunas. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed another application to strike off the defendant's written statement, which was pending.

Held

The High Court held that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was misconceived as the matter was a commercial suit reserved for final judgment. The Court found merit in the Trial Court's findings that the Petitioner was attempting to impede the final judgment by filing successive applications. Specifically addressing the Petitioner's request to lead rebuttal evidence, the Court noted that the emails were not produced with the plaint and were only confronted during cross-examination. The Court emphasized the rigorous provisions of Order XI CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regarding the filing of documents, and stated that the Petitioner had not established a reasonable cause for the non-disclosure of emails with the plaint. Furthermore, the Petitioner had not sought production of GST returns or financial records at any prior stage, nor were these witnesses enlisted. The Court reiterated that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be invoked routinely, especially when the matter is reserved for judgment. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court in not permitting further evidence at that stage was deemed correct in law and fact. The Court also highlighted that Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, bars revision applications against interlocutory orders, and interference under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly, particularly in commercial suits, to uphold the legislative intent of expeditious disposal. The Court found no error of jurisdiction in the Trial Court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner, as the plaintiff in a commercial suit, is entitled to lead rebuttal evidence after the conclusion of final arguments and when the matter is listed for judgment, particularly concerning emails confronted during cross-examination and financial records from the GST Department and Registrar of Companies, under Order XVIII Rule 2 and 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the necessity for the application arose due to the cross-examination of DW-1 on March 31, 2023, and July 24, 2023. The Petitioner sought to prove emails confronted to DW-1 and to obtain financial records from the GST Department and Registrar of Companies. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent (Revenue/State). However, the Trial Court's reasoning, which the High Court considered, indicated that the onus of recovery was on the plaintiff, and therefore, rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC was not permissible. The Trial Court also viewed the application as an attempt to delay proceedings and fill lacunas, especially since the matter was listed for judgment. The High Court also referenced Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, barring revision applications against interlocutory orders.