MAHESH CHAUDHRI Vs. IMV INDIA PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 seeking permission to take on record additional documents. It is pleaded that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,53,52,832/- under various heads including towards claims/dues of commission etc. Documents were filed by the Cplaintiff alongwith the plaint on 16.05.2018. Defendants have now filed their written statement. It is stated that on perusal of the written statement it was observed by the plaintiff that the claim/averment made by the defendant in the written statement were clearly beyond the issues raised in the plaint. It is stated that the plaint has raised various preliminary objections and has raised various claims which are in the nature of counter-claims. Hence, it is stated that it is necessary for the plaintiff to file replication and also to respond to the allegations made in the written statement. It is stated that alongwith the replication the plaintiff has filed the additional documents.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has strongly opposed the present application. He has stated that alongwith the plaint the plaintiff has filed appropriate declaration that all documents in the power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiff pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed to the plaint and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in his power, possession, control or custody. Reliance is also placed on Order 11 Rule 1 (3) CPC. He, however, clarifies that he does not deny that the documents filed by the plaintiff may be relevant. He, however, further states that he is not in a position to comment on the relevancy of the documents, at this stage. He further relies upon a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Shri Ramanand vs. DDA (Thr. It s Vice Chairman) & Anr, and CS(Comm.) 1215/2016 & CC(Comm.) 36/2017 titled Nitin Gupta vs. Texmaco Infrastructure & Holding Limited dated 29.04.2019 to support his case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant has reiterated that the need and occasion to file the documents arose only after the written statement was Cfiled by the defendants. He states that there is no delay as the replication has been filed and the documents were also filed alongwith an application. Issues have not been framed. He also relies upon the suit filed by the defendant being CS(OS) 264/2018 which is also listed in the Court today. He states that in the said case also the defendant herein who is the plaintiff in that suit had filed additional documents alongwith the replication which this court had taken on record vide order dated 30.4.2019.