BESTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. FAKIRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforetitled revision petitions assail orders dtd. 25/2/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram vide which the applications under Order 11 Rule 1 (10) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') were dismissed. Two suits i.e. Civil Suit Nos.98 and 99 of 2021 titled as 'Fakira Singh Vs. M/s Bestech India Private Limited' and 'Ashok Kumar Vs. M/s Bestech India Private Limited and Another' respectively were filed. The petitioner is the defendant in both the suits and assails orders on the applications filed by the petitioner. The issue being identical, the same is being decided by way of a common judgment. The facts, however, are being derived from CR-1501-2025 titled as 'M/s Bestech India Private Limited Vs. Fakira Singh (Deceased) Through LRs and Another'.

(2.) The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in the Special Commercial Court, Gurugram in the year 2021. Written statement was filed. An application (Annexure P-2) under Order 11 Rule 1 (10) CPC was filed seeking permission to tender additional documents on behalf of the petitioner-defendant. 13 documents which were the audited balance sheets of the petitioner-defendant starting from the financial year 2011-2012 to the financial year 2023-2024 were sought to be produced. It was averred that the said documents were important and necessary to prove the case of the petitioner-defendant. It was averred that the said documents could not be appended with the written statement as they were not available despite due diligence. It was also averred that the application was being filed without any delay. It was further averred that the production of the documents was essential for the just, proper and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

(3.) The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-3). It was averred that the application was belated and had been filed when the evidence of the plaintiff had already concluded. Reference was made to Order 11 Rule 1 (10) CPC and it was averred that in view of the same, the documents could not be permitted to be produced in evidence. On merits, all averments were denied.