### PLAINTIFF PERMITTED TO DISCLOSE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO REBUT DEFENCE RAISED IN WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER XI CPC

The plaintiff filed an application seeking leave to disclose additional documents after the filing of the plaint and beyond the initial discovery stage

These documents included survey reports regarding a fire at a different mill, risk consultancy reports, layout plans, bank statements

and public documents such as balance sheets and tax audit reports.

Additionally, the plaintiff sought to introduce a General Diary dated September 25, 2017, which had been misfiled and recently discovered.

The plaintiff contended these documents became necessary to rebut the defense set up in the written statement while preparing evidence on affidavit.

The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the documents were within the plaintiff's knowledge earlier and that the plaintiff failed to utilize prior liberties granted by the court to disclose outstanding documents.

1. Whether the plaintiff established "reasonable cause" or a statutory exception under Order XI of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) to disclose additional documents at this stage

2. Whether there is an absolute bar or a fixed outer time limit for disclosing additional documents in a commercial suit

The court primarily applied Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015).

Specifically, it relied on Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii), which provides an exception for documents required to be disclosed in answer to a case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint.

It also considered Order XI Rule 1(5), which allows for additional disclosure with the leave of the court upon showing reasonable cause for non-disclosure at the time of filing the plaint.

The court relied on the precedent Usha Martin Limited vs. Balurghat Technologies Limited to affirm that no absolute outer limit is fixed under the rules

and Darrameks Hotels and Developers Pvt Ltd vs. Brilltech Engineers Pvt Ltd regarding the factual evaluation required for such applications.

The court reasoned that Order XI Rule 1(1)(c) provides a specific carve-out for documents intended to answer the defendant’s case as set up in the written statement, which is inherently "subsequent to the filing of the plaint".

Regarding the misfiled General Diary, the court found that the explanation provided—discovery of the document in a different file—constituted sufficient cause under Rule 1(5).

The court distinguished the defendant's cited precedent (Darrameks) by noting that the instant application was not strictly bound by the limitations of Sub-Rule (4), and emphasized that the discretion to allow documents is based on the factual matrix, relevancy, and the reason for the delay.

The court clarified that at this stage, it only possesses the authority to permit the disclosure; the "worthiness," "accuracy," or "fate worth" of the documents would be adjudicated during the final trial.

The court held that the documents could be disclosed as they were necessary to answer the case set up by the defendant.

The court directed the plaintiff to file a supplementary Judge’s Brief of Documents within four weeks, restricted to the documents mentioned in the application.

The relevancy of these documents remains subject to adjudication during the trial.