M/S KPN TRAVELS PVT LTD., vs SMT SHILPA M B

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023
R


CNR: KAHC010472442023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO.20133/2023 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

M/S. KPN TRAVELS PVT LTD.,
REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2016,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.23-B, RAJAJI STREET
SWAMAPURI COLONY, SALEM
TAMIL NADU 636004.

ALSO AT:

M/S. KPN TRAVELS INDIA LIMITED.,
REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2016,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 24/3,
GROUND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS
DOUBLE ROAD, WILSON GARDEN
NEAR BMTC BUS STATION
SHANTHINAGAR
NEAR LALBAGH 2ND GATE
BANGALORE 560027.

REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. T. TAMILANBAN.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINANDAN K, ADV.,)

AND:

SMT. SHILPA M.B.
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S NANDINI FUEL STATION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 53












Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


AREKEMPANAHALLI
OPPOSITE TO 10TH CROSS
WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE 560027.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADV.,)
- - -

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 23/08/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXVII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED
COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BANGALORE (CCH-88) IN
COMMERCIAL O.S. NO.1266/2022 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS
TO THE IA NO. 15 AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
25.08.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated
23.08.2023 passed on I.A.No.15 in
Com.O.S.No.1266/2022 by the LXXXVII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge (exclusive dedicated Commercial
Court), Bengaluru (CCH-88) (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Commercial Court').

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


2. Sri.Srinandan K., learned counsel for the
petitioner-defendant submits that the Commercial Court
has proceeded to pass the impugned order without
considering the material on record in its proper
perspective. It is submitted that the documents sought to
be produced have been mentioned in the plaint, which
clearly indicates that the respondent-plaintiff was in
possession of the same and despite that, the documents
were not produced at the time of filing of the plaint. It is
further submitted that if the plaintiff wanted to produce
the additional documents, then leave of the Court ought to
have been sought as per Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the amended
CPC’), in the absence of which, the additional documents
could not have been produced. It is also submitted that as
per Order XI Rule 1(5), the additional documents can be
relied upon if the Court grants leave to the plaintiff on
establishing a reasonable cause for non-production of the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


documents along with the plaint. However, in the instant
case, no reasonable justification is provided by the plaintiff
in order to justify the delay in producing the additional
documents. It is contended that in view of the non-
compliance of the strict provisions enumerated under
Order XI Rule 1 of the amended CPC, the impugned order
ought to be interfered with. In support of his contentions,
he placed reliance on the following decisions:
a) SUDHIR KUMAR ALIAS S. BALIYAN Vs. VINAY
1
KUMAR G.B.
2
b) BELA CREATION PVT. LTD. Vs. ANUJ TEXTILES
c) M/s. BESTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. FAKIRA
3
SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs AND ANOTHER
d) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
4
LIMITED Vs. FICUS PAX PRIVATE LIMITED

Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.


1
(2021) 13 SCC 71
2
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1366
3
2025 SCC OnLine P & H 14896 dt. 13.03.2025
4
WP No. 23634/2025 dt. 03.09.2025

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


3. Per contra , Sri.D.P.Mahesh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supports the
impugned order and submits that the documents were
genuinely secured from the Auditor after filing of the suit,
hence, the delay was justified. It is submitted that the
documents sought to be produced were voluminous and
incomplete, from the first date to the last date of supply,
that these documents were relevant for adjudication of the
dispute and that no prejudice will be caused to the
petitioner-defendant by their production. The decision
relied on by the other side are distinguishable on facts and
therefore, have no application to the facts of the case.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the
respondent, meticulously perused the material available
on record and given my anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced on both the sides.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


5. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in
Com.O.S.No.1266/2022 against the petitioner-defendant
seeking recovery of Rs.9,91,50,000/- along with interest
@ 18% p.a. In the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed
I.A.No.15 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the amended CPC,
seeking leave to produce the additional documents,
namely e-mail correspondence and excel sheets recording
diesel sales on the ground that the same were secured
from her Auditor subsequent to filing of the suit which
were voluminous. The petitioner-defendant opposed the
application contending that the documents have been
clearly mentioned in the plaint and there was no leave
sought by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the
amended CPC, to produce the additional documents. The
Commercial Court considered the contentions on both the
sides and proceeded to allow the application on the ground
that not allowing the same would cause multiplicity of
proceeding, miscarriage of justice and further delay.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


6. To appreciate the aforesaid contentions and
evaluate the material on record in its right perspective, it
would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of Order
XI Rule 1 of the amended CPC, which is extracted as
follows:
“ORDER XI – Disclosure, Discovery and
Inspection of Documents
Rule 1 – Disclosure and Discovery of
Documents
(1) xxxx
(2) The list of documents filed with the plaint
shall specify whether the documents in the power,
possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are
originals, office copies or photocopies and the list
shall also set out in brief, details of parties to each
document, mode of execution, issuance or receipt
and line of review of said documents.

(3) The plaint shall contain a declaration on oath
from the plaintiff that all documents in the power,
possession, control or custody of the plaintiff
pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the
proceedings initiated by him have been disclosed
and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and
that the plaintiff does not have any other

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


documents in its power, possession, control or
custody.

(4) In case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may
seek leave to rely on additional documents, as
contained in any line of defense or relief, which
could not be filed along with the plaint, and the
Court may grant such leave only after recording
reasons in writing and upon such terms as to costs
or otherwise as it may deem fit. Such additional
documents shall be filed within thirty days from
the date of filing of the suit.

(5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on
documents, which were in the plaintiff's power,
possession, control or custody and not disclosed
along with the plaint or within the extended period
set out above, save and except by leave of court
and such leave shall be granted only upon the
plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-
disclosure along with the plaint.

7. The aforesaid provisions lay down the
procedure for production of documents along with a plaint
and the procedure to be followed when seeking to produce
the additional documents. A perusal of the aforesaid

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


provisions indicates the following steps in which a
document can be produced:
a) Production of Documents along with the
Plaint [Rule 1(1) to 1(3)] - The plaintiff must
file a complete list of documents along with the
plaint detailing those in their power, possession,
control and custody. Additionally, a mandatory
statement of truth (declaration on oath) must be
submitted affirming that all relevant documents in
their possession, power, control, or custody have
been fully disclosed and annexed to the plaint.

b) Seeking Leave for Additional Documents
in Urgent Filings [Rule 1(4)] - If the plaintiff is
unable to produce all documents at the time of
filing due to urgency, they may seek leave of the
Court to produce additional documents later.
However, the Court can only grant this leave for a
maximum period of 30 days from the date of filing
the plaint, subject to recorded reasons and
potential costs.

c) Subsequent Production of Undisclosed
Documents [Rule 1(5)] - If a document in the
plaintiff's custody was neither produced with the
plaint nor disclosed within the 30-day urgent filing
window after the Court has granted the leave, it is

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


strictly barred. The plaintiff can only produce it
later under Rule 1(5) if the Court grants special
leave upon the plaintiff proving "reasonable cause"
for its non-disclosure at the initial stage.

8. The aforesaid analysis enumerates the statutory
scheme governing document production under Order XI
Rule 1 of the amended CPC. It establishes the mandatory
general rule requiring comprehensive disclosure at the
time of filing, while delineating strict, narrow exceptions—
namely under Rules 1(4) and 1(5)—where delayed
production may be permitted by leave of the Court.

9. In the instant case, the plaintiff in the plaint has
clearly referred to the documents sought to be produced in
I.A.No.15 and stated that the said documents would be
produced during the course of trial. The plaintiff, in the
affidavit accompanying I.A.No.15 has also reiterated that
he has already mentioned in the plaint that the documents
would be produced during trial. However, the plaintiff, in
his affidavit has stated that the same could not be

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


produced as the documents were with the Auditor and the
same was very voluminous.

10. The aforesaid plaint averments and the
explanation in the affidavit clearly indicate that the plaintiff
intended to produce the documents during the trial. It is
not the case of the plaintiff that she was subsequently
made aware of the documents. Hence, when the intention
of the plaintiff is clear with regard to production of the
documents, I am of the view that the plaintiff ought to
have produced the documents along with the plaint or
would have sought leave of the Court to produce them
subsequent to the filing of the plaint. In absence of any
leave sought or granted regarding production of additional
documents, allowing production of such documents would
be against the object of the Rule and the Commercial
Courts Act.

11. Furthermore, the contention of the plaintiff that
the documents now sought to be produced were in the

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


possession of the Auditor and hence, could not be
produced, is also required to be rejected as the possession
of the Auditor amounts to an extended possession of the
documents by the plaintiff.

12. Insofar as the contention that the document
could not be produced since they are voluminous is
concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.
LEVITATE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. Vs.
5
M/s. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR. has
clearly held that, evidence however voluminous, cannot
water down the statutory intent and rigours of the statue.
Hence, the said contention cannot be used to by-pass the
procedure and even if the documents were too voluminous
to be filed with the plaint in view of any urgent filing, leave
of the Court under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the amended
CPC, ought to have been sought. Therefore, in the
absence of any such exercise by the plaintiff, the

5
2026 INSC 674

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


contention that the documents could not have been
produced at the initial stage due to being voluminous, is
required to rejected.

13. The main object of the Commercial Courts Act,
is to create a fast and highly efficient mechanism resolving
the disputes of commercial nature. In order to avoid the
long delays usually found in regular Court proceedings, the
Commercial Courts Act sets strict and fixed deadlines for
procedures. By enforcing these strict procedures, the law
aims to cut down on delays and create a framework for
speedy resolution of the commercial disputes. Hence, if
such procedures as one enumerated in Order XI Rule 1 of
the amended CPC, are bypassed in a lenient manner, the
same would defeat the very object of the Commercial
Courts Act.

14. Hence, in view of the aforesaid analysis, I am of
the view that the Commercial Court has committed an
error in allowing the application solely on the ground that

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023


not allowing the application would cause multiplicity of
proceedings, cause miscarriage of justice and further delay
the proceedings. The Commercial Court ought to have
considered the application within the scope of the
Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, I am of the view the
impugned order is required to be interfered with.

15. It is also noticed that during the evidence-in-
chief of the plaintiff, the documents which are sought to be
produced under I.A.No.15 were inadvertently marked as
Exs.P16 to P18 before deciding on I.A.No.15. The
defendant’s counsel has filed a memo dated 06.03.2023
highlighting the said error, but no correction with regard to
the same has been made sofar. Hence, I am of the view
that in view of the dismissal of I.A.No.15, the error in
marking the documents is required to be corrected by de-
exhibiting the same.

16. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to
pass the following:

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47016
W.P. No.20133/2023


CNR: KAHC010472442023



ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed .
b) The impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the
LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
(exclusive dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru,
is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.15 filed
under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the amended CPC, by
the respondent-plaintiff, is dismissed.
c) The Commercial Court is directed to dispose of the
suit as early as possible without any delay.

No order as to costs.


Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3