Court may allow additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC upon showing reasonable cause.

The plaintiff filed a commercial suit for recovery regarding detention charges and loading expenses.

The defendant failed to file a written statement, forfeiting its right to do so under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC; the suit proceeded as undefended.

After the plaintiff's first witness concluded examination-in-chief, the Court raised queries during arguments regarding the basis of the detention charges and comparative costs.

Consequently, the plaintiff filed this application seeking leave to disclose additional documents (emails, booking notes, and contracts) and to examine a second witness to prove these documents.

Some documents were located in a branch office after a search, while others were obtained from a sister concern in Singapore.

The Court applied Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), specifically Sub-Rule 5, which prohibits reliance on documents in the plaintiff's custody not disclosed with the plaint except by leave of Court upon establishing "reasonable cause".

The Court relied on *Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B.* (2021) 13 SCC 71, which clarifies that leave can be granted if reasonable cause is shown even after the initial 30-day window.

It further adopted the interpretation of "reasonable cause" from *Agva Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Agfa-Gevaert NV* (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7914), noting it requires a lower degree of proof than "sufficient cause".

The Court reasoned that while the Commercial Courts Act mandates rigorous disclosure, Sub-Rule 5 of Order XI Rule 1 ensures there is no absolute bar to subsequent disclosure if the Court's discretion is exercised on "just and cogent" grounds.

The Court found the plaintiff’s explanation—that the documents were required to answer specific judicial queries raised during arguments and were previously stored in archived databases or at a different branch—constituted "reasonable cause".

It noted that since the suit was undefended, the defendant would not suffer prejudice, especially as they retained the right to cross-examine the new witness on these limited documents.

The Court emphasized that at this stage, it need not adjudicate the genuineness of the documents, only whether they should be admitted to the record.

The Court held that Sub-Rule 5 provides a discretionary window for disclosure even at late stages of a trial if the cause is reasonable.

The order was made subject to the plaintiff paying costs of ₹50,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.

The second witness's testimony and any subsequent cross-examination must be strictly restricted to the newly disclosed documents.