Commercial Courts Must Strictly Construe "Reasonable Cause" to Prevent Piecemeal Production of Voluminous Additional Documents

The Appellant (LMT) entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Respondent (SCB) on February 19, 2013, to develop a mobile application

Following a dispute regarding revenue sharing and the subsequent removal of the app, LMT filed a civil suit in 2015

The suit was renumbered as a commercial suit (CS(Comm.) 169 of 2018) in January 2018, at which time LMT was granted leave to file additional documents

After the completion of the cross-examination of Plaintiff’s Witness (PW-1) in May 2023, LMT filed a second application (IA No. 24359 of 2023) to introduce further additional documents—including emails and backend data—and to recall PW-1

The High Court rejected this application, finding no "reasonable cause" for the delay

1. Whether the Appellant established "reasonable cause" under Order XI of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act) to justify the filing of additional documents eight years after the suit's institution and after the completion of witness evidence

The court applied the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA), specifically Section 15(3), which mandates that the procedures of the CCA apply to pending suits transferred to Commercial Divisions

It primarily relied on Order XI Rule 1(4) and (5) of the CPC (as amended by the CCA), which requires a plaintiff to show "reasonable cause" for the non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing the suit

The court also applied the principles from Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B. regarding the strict necessity of established justification

State of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros. Engineers Contractors (P) Ltd., which emphasizes that "sufficient cause" (or reasonable cause) cannot be used to condone negligence or a lack of diligence in commercial matters meant for speedy resolution

The Court observed that the primary objective of the CCA is the "expeditious culmination of proceedings" to enhance the ease of doing business

It rejected LMT’s justification that the documents were voluminous or that new facts emerged during cross-examination, noting that a plaintiff is expected to anticipate the opponent's case and produce all documents in their possession at the earliest instance

The Court found it significant that LMT had already been allowed one round of additional evidence in 2018 based on substantially similar grounds

Because the documents were in LMT's possession since the suit's inception, the Court determined that allowing a "piecemeal approach" after five years of the suit being designated as "commercial" would subvert the statutory intent of the CCA

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order and directed the trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible