Bela Creation PVT LTD vs. Anuj Textiles

Held

The High Court held that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for not filing the additional documents along with the written statement. The Court noted that the petitioner's director had explicitly affirmed in the statement of truth accompanying the written statement that all documents in their possession had been disclosed and filed. In the absence of any averment that these invoices were not in the petitioner's possession at that time, the Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the application. The Court emphasized that the departure of a counsel, while unfortunate, does not constitute 'reasonable cause' for the negligence in filing documents before the Court. Such cause must be outside the petitioner's control. The High Court found no error of jurisdiction or other error warranting supervisory correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition was accordingly rejected in limine.

Facts

The petitioner, Bela Creation Pvt Ltd, is the defendant in a commercial suit filed by Anuj Textiles (respondent) for recovery of ₹56,64,846/- for fabric supplied between August 4, 2017, and June 20, 2018. The petitioner filed a written statement and counter-claim, accompanied by a statement of truth. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to take on record certain additional documents, specifically invoices. The petitioner contended that these invoices were reflected in their GST returns and ledger accounts, and their non-filing was due to a former counsel leaving the law firm during COVID-19. The Commercial Court rejected this application, noting that the petitioner's director had affirmed in the statement of truth that all documents in their possession had been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not filing the additional documents (invoices) along with the written statement, as required by Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, read with Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-filing of invoices was due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically the departure of their previous counsel during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the invoices were reflected in their GST returns and ledger accounts. They contended that the fact that the invoices were referenced in GST returns should have been a ground for allowing their application. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the Commercial Court's reasoning, which the High Court upheld, focused on the petitioner's statement of truth and the absence of a valid explanation for non-filing.