Undisclosed documents in plaintiff’s extended possession require leave based on reasonable cause under Order XI Rule 1(5).

The respondent-plaintiff instituted Com. O.S. No. 1266/2022 before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, seeking recovery of ₹9,91,50,000 with interest at 18% per annum.

During the suit, she filed I.A. No. 15 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking leave to produce e-mail correspondence and Excel sheets relating to diesel sales. She stated that the documents had been obtained from her Auditor after institution of the suit and were voluminous.

The petitioner-defendant opposed the application, contending that the documents had already been referred to in the plaint, were within the plaintiff’s possession or control, and could not be produced without compliance with Order XI Rule 1(4) and (5).

The Commercial Court allowed I.A. No. 15 on the grounds that refusal might result in multiplicity of proceedings, miscarriage of justice and further delay. The defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the plaintiff could produce additional documents, which had been referred to in the plaint but were not filed with it, without having sought leave under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the amended CPC.

Whether the plaintiff established a “reasonable cause” under Order XI Rule 1(5) for non-disclosure and delayed production of the documents.

Whether the Commercial Court was justified in allowing the application on grounds of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and miscarriage of justice, despite non-compliance with the statutory disclosure procedure.

The Court applied Order XI Rule 1(2) and (3) of the amended CPC, which require comprehensive disclosure of documents in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody along with the plaint, accompanied by a declaration on oath that all relevant documents have been disclosed.

Under Order XI Rule 1(4), in urgent filings, additional documents may be produced only with the Court’s leave, ordinarily within thirty days of filing the suit, upon recorded reasons and appropriate terms.

Order XI Rule 1(5) bars reliance on documents not disclosed within the prescribed period unless the Court grants leave after the plaintiff establishes reasonable cause for the earlier non-disclosure.

The Court further relied on M/s. Levatate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, 2026 INSC 674, for the principle that the volume of evidence cannot dilute or override the statutory requirements governing disclosure in commercial suits.

The Court found that the plaintiff had expressly referred to the documents in the plaint and had stated that they would be produced during the trial, demonstrating that she was aware of their existence and intended to rely on them from the outset.

Consequently, the documents ought either to have been filed with the plaint or disclosed through an application seeking leave under Order XI Rule 1(4).

The explanation that the documents were held by the Auditor did not constitute reasonable cause, since the Auditor’s possession was treated as extended possession or control of the plaintiff.

Their voluminous nature also did not justify bypassing the mandatory procedure; the plaintiff should have sought leave at the initial stage.

The Commercial Court therefore erred by relying on general considerations of preventing multiplicity of proceedings and miscarriage of justice without applying the strict procedural framework of the Commercial Courts Act and amended Order XI.

Since the documents had also been inadvertently marked as Exhibits P16 to P18 before determination of I.A. No. 15, those exhibits required de-exhibition following dismissal of the application.

I.A. No. 15 under Order XI Rule 1(5) was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish reasonable cause for not disclosing the documents with the plaint or seeking timely leave under Rule 1(4).

The Commercial Court was directed to de-exhibit Exhibits P16 to P18 and dispose of the suit expeditiously. No order was made as to costs.