2021 INSC 0531
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.      5620 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13082 OF 2021)
SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN                .. APPELLANT (S)
     
VERSUS
VINAY KUMAR G.B.   .. RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi
at   New   Delhi   in   C.   M.   (M)   No.181   of   2021,   by   which   the   High
Court has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant
herein   –   original   plaintiff   and   has   confirmed   the   order   dated
13.11.2019   passed   by   the   learned   Commercial   Court,
dismissing   the   application   filed   by   the   appellant   under   Order
1

VII   Rule   14   (3)   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   Code)   seeking   leave   of   the   court   to   place
additional   documents   on   record,   the   original   plaintiff   has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The   appellant   herein   –   original   plaintiff   filed   the   commercial
suit   before   the   Commercial   Court   pending   in   the   court   of
learned   Additional   District   Judge   (Central)   10,   being   T.M.
No.123   of   2019   interalia   for   claiming   a   decree   of   permanent
injunction   against   the   defendant   from   using   the   Trade   Mark
“INSIGHT”,   “INSIGHT   ACADEMY”,   “INSIGHT   IAS   ACADEMY”
and   “INSIGHT   PUBLICATIONS”.   At   this   stage,   it   is   to   be   noted
that   the   appellant   filed   the   earlier   suit   being   Trade   Mark   Suit
No.236   of   2018,   claiming   such   adoption   and   use   of   the
trademark.   However,   subsequently   the   same   came   to   be
withdrawn   on   27.07.2019,   as   the   same   was   not   filed   in
conformity   with   the   provisions   of   the   Commercial   Courts   Act,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial Courts Act) and
subsequently filed the present suit on 31.08.2019. In the suit it
is   alleged   that   the   adoption   and   use   of   the   trademark   by   it   is
2

since 2006. As per the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 applicable
to the suits before the commercial division of a High Court or a
commercial   court,   the   plaintiff   was   required   to   file   a   list   of   all
documents   and   photocopies   of   all   documents,   in   its   power,
possession,   control   or   custody,   pertaining   to   the   suit,   along
with   the   plaint   or   certain   documents   including   the   invoices,
were   not   produced   along   with   the   plaint   and   therefore   the
appellant   herein   filed   the   application   under   Order   VII   Rule   14
(3) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking  leave of the court to
file additional documents. 
2.1 By   order   dated   13.11.2019,   the   learned   Commercial   Court
dismissed the said application seeking leave of the court to file
additional   documents,   filed   by   the   appellant.   That   thereafter
the defendant filed the written statement on 06.01.2020. As per
Order XI Rule 7 even the defendant was required to file the list
of   all   documents,   photocopies   of   all   documents,   in   its   power,
possession,   control   or   custody,   pertaining   to   the   suit,   along
with   the   written   statement   or   with   its   counter   claim,   if   any.
However, some documents were not produced by the defendant
3

along   with   the   written   statement   and   therefore   the   defendant
filed   an   application   under   Order   XI   Rule   1   (10)   of   the   CPC
seeking   leave   of   the   court   to   produce   additional   documents   as
set   out   in   the   said   application,   however,   the   commercial   court
partly   rejected   the   said   application   vide   order   dated
08.10.2020. 
The respondent herein – original defendant preferred an appeal
against   the   order   dated   08.10.2020   before   the   Delhi   High
Court.   The   Delhi   High   Court   vide   order   dated   07.12.2020
allowed the said appeal taking on record all the documents filed
by the defendant. That thereafter the learned Commercial Court
dismissed   the   interim   injunction   application   filed   under   Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC of the plaintiff vide order dated
16.01.2021. 
2.2 That thereafter the appellant herein – original plaintiff filed CM
(M)  No.181   of   2021   before   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   challenging
the order dated 13.11.2019, dismissing the application seeking
leave   of   the   court   to   file   additional   documents   filed   by   the
plaintiff. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
4

has   dismissed   the   said   CM   (M)   No.   181   of   2021   and   has
confirmed   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Commercial   Court
dismissing   the   application   seeking   leave   to   file   additional
documents filed by the plaintiff. 
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   the   original   plaintiff   has
preferred the present appeal. 
4. Shri Sachin Datta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
circumstances   of   the   case,   the   application   submitted   by   the
plaintiff to file/produce on record the additional documents, as
mentioned in the application submitted under Order XIV Rule 3
ought to have been allowed. 
4.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   that   as   such   the   documents   which
are   sought   to   be   relied   upon   and   sought   to   be   produced   on
record are very much necessary for the purpose of just decision
of the suit. 
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   when   the   defendant   was   permitted   to
produce   on   record   the   additional   documents   along   with   the
written statement  in  exercise of  powers  under  Order  XI  Rule 1
5

(10)   of   the   CPC,   similarly   the   plaintiff   also   ought   to   have   been
permitted to place on record the additional documents which as
such   are   very   much   necessary   for   just   decision   of   the   suit.  
4.3 It   is   further   submitted   that   by   Shri   Datta,   learned   Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   High
Court   ought   to   have   appreciated   the   application   to   file
additional   documents   was   filed   by   the   plaintiff   within   10   days
of   filing   of   the   suit.   It   is   submitted   that   as   such   therefore   the
High Court has erred in holding that the additional documents
were   produced   by   the   plaintiff   at   a   belated   stage.   It   is   further
submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   also   materially   erred   in
observing   that   the   explanation   for   non­filing   of   additional
documents   is   an   afterthought   and   when   the   application   for
interim   injunction   under   Order   XXXIX   Rule   1   was   kept   for
orders. 
4.4 It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   at   all   not   appreciated
the   fact   that   the   application   seeking   leave   of   the   court   to
produce   the   additional   documents   was   filed   within   30   days   of
filing of the suit and therefore the requirement under Order XI
6

Rule 1 (4) of the CPC was satisfied. 
4.5 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   the   High   Court   has   erred   in
not   appreciating   that   the   additional   documents   are   in   support
of the pleadings already made in the plaint. 
4.6 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   the   High   Court   has   erred   in
not appreciating that the learned Trial Court/Commercial Court
erred in holding that the documents are suspicious because the
plaintiff   did   not   mention   about   the   existence   of   the   said
documents   in   the   plaint.   It   is   submitted   that   at   the   stage   of
production   of   the   additional   documents,   the   learned   Trial
Court/Commercial Court was not at all required to consider the
genuineness   of   the   documents   sought   to   be   produced,   which
otherwise   are   required   to   be   decided   or   considered   during   the
trial of the suit. 
4.7 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   otherwise   so   far   as   the
invoices,   which   are   sought   to   be   produced,   are   concerned,   it
was   specifically   stated   that   the   said   documents   were   not
available   or  in   possession   of   the   plaintiff   at  the   time   when   the
suit was filed and the same were discovered subsequently. 
7

4.8 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the appellant that cogent reasons were given by the plaintiff for
not   producing   the   additional   documents   other   than   the
invoices, along with the suit. It is submitted that as such there
was no other  malafide intention  and/or  negligence  on  the part
of   the   plaintiff   for   not   producing   along   with   the   plaint   the
additional   documents   other   than   the   invoices.   It   is   submitted
that   the   suit   was   filed   on   an   urgent   basis   seeking   an   ex­parte
ad   interim   injunction   and   therefore   the   additional   documents
other   than   the   invoices,   which   were   bulky   were   not   produced
along   with   the   plaint.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   when   the
application   for   leave   to   produce   the   additional   documents   was
filed within a period of 10 days from the date of filing of the suit
i.e. without any undue delay, the said application ought to have
been  allowed and the plaintiff  ought to  have  been permitted to
produce   the   additional   documents   as   mentioned   in   the
application.                    
 
5. The   present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.   Kruttika
Vijay,   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent
8

herein – original defendant. 
5.1 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
and   considering   the   object   and   purpose   of   Order   XI   Rule   1   as
applicable   to   the   suits   before   the   commercial   court   and
considering   the   said   provisions,   both   the   learned   Trial
Court/Commercial Court as well as the High Court have rightly
dismissed   the  application   filed  by   the   plaintiff   under   Order   VII
Rule 14 (3) of the CPC. 
5.2 It   is   submitted   that   as   such   no   cogent   reasons   were   given   by
the plaintiff for not producing additional documents along with
the   plaint.   It   is   submitted   that   in   the   absence   of   any   cogent
reasons,   the   application   submitted   by   the   plaintiff   for   seeking
leave   of   the   court   to   produce   the   additional   documents   is
rightly   dismissed.   It   is   submitted   that   the   order   rejecting   the
application of the plaintiff seeking leave of the court to produce
on record the additional documents is absolutely in consonance
with the provisions of the Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule
1 (5) of the CPC. 
5.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the respondent herein–original defendant that in view
9

of   the   specific   provision   by   way   of   amendment   in   the   CPC,
amending Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC w.r.t. the suits before the
commercial   court,   considering   Section   16   of   the   Commercial
Courts   Act,   Order   VII   Rule   14(3)   shall   not   be   applicable   at   all
and   what   shall   be   applicable   would   be   Order   XI   Rule   1   of   the
CPC   as   applicable   to   the   suits   before   the   commercial   court.  
5.4 It   is   further   submitted   that   as   such   the   application   submitted
by   the   plaintiff   lacked   bonafides   as   having   realized   during   the
course   of   the   hearing   of   the   interim   injunction   application
under   Order   XXXIX   Rule   1   that   non   production   of   the
documents which subsequently are sought to be produced may
come   in   their   way   and   the   interim   injunction   application   was
kept   for   orders   and   as   an   afterthought   the   application   was
given. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent herein ­ original defendant that so
far as the cause/reason shown in not producing the additional
documents  other   than  the  invoices,   namely,  as   the  documents
were bulky  and  therefore they  were not  produced, cannot be a
ground,  subsequently  to  permit  the  plaintiff to place on record
10

the additional documents which as such were in possession of
the plaintiff at the time of filing of the plaint/suit.       
 
6. Making   the   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   dismiss   the
present appeal. 
7. We  have   heard  the   learned   counsel   appearing  on   behalf   of   the
respective parties at length. 
7.1 By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has
dismissed   the   petition   confirming   the   order   passed   by   the
learned   Commercial   Court   dated   13.11.2019,   dismissing   the
application   filed   by   the   appellant   herein   –   original   plaintiff
seeking   leave   of   the   court   to   place   additional   documents   on
record.   That   by   the   said   application   the   plaintiff   prayed   to
permit   him   to   place   on   record   the   invoices   as   mentioned   in
paragraph 3 of the application and also certain other additional
documents. That the plaintiff stated in the application for leave
to place on record additional documents in paragraph 3 and 4
as under:­ 
“3. That the accompanying documents along with the present
application   in   particular   invoice   dated   03.05.2005,   invoice
dated   08.07.2005,   invoice   dated   10.08.2005,   invoice   dated
22.02.2006,   invoice   dated   10.04.2006,   1nvo1ce   dated
05.06.2006,   invoice   dated   15.07.2006,   invoice   dated
10.01.2007,   invoice   dated   14.03.2007,   invoice   dated
19.05.2007,   invoice   dated   08.07.2007,   invoice   dated
11

06.09.2007,   invoice   dated   14.03.2007,   invoice   dated
01.10.2007 could not be filed along with plaint being very old
and   not   in   possession   of   the   plaintiff   at   the   time   of   filing   the
plaint. Now the plaintiff has found the same from the Shivalik
Graphics.
4.     That   the   documents   other   than   above   said   documents
could   not   be   filed   due   to   voluminous   records   pertaining   to
plaintiff case could not be filed at the time of filing of case but
the   same   are   very   important   for   the   adjudication   of   dispute
between the parties.”
The   aforesaid   application   has   been   dismissed   by   the   learned
Commercial   Court,   which   has   been   confirmed   by   the   High
Court by the impugned judgment and order.   
7.2 At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   as   such   the   said
application for leave to produce on record additional documents
was preferred by  the  appellant  herein  – original  plaintiff under
Order   VII   Rule   14   (3)   of   the   CPC.   However,   considering   the
Order XI Rule 1 as applicable to the commercial suits by which
Civil   Procedure   Code   has   been   amended   with   respect   to   the
suits before the commercial court and in view of the Section 16
of the Commercial Courts Act, Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CPC
shall   have   no   application   at   all.   After   the   Order   XI   Rule   1   has
been   amended   with  respect   to   the   suits   before   the   commercial
courts   and   a   specific   provision/procedure   has   been   prescribed
12

with   respect   to   the   suits   before   the   commercial   division   and
before   the   commercial   court,   the   provision   of   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure as has been amended by the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 shall have to be followed and any provision of any rule of
the   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   or   any   amendment   to   the
Code   of   Civil   Procedure   by   the   State   Government   which   is   in
conflict   of   the   Code   of   the   Civil   Procedure   as   amended   by
Commercial   Courts   Act,   the   provision   of   the   Code   of   the   Civil
Procedure   as   amended   by   the   Commercial   Courts   Act   shall
prevail.   Therefore,   Order   XI   Rule   1   as   amended   by   the
amendment  in   the  Commercial  Courts  Act,  with  respect  to   the
suits before the commercial division and the commercial court,
the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 (3) shall not be applicable at
all.  Therefore   as  such   the  plaintiff   applied   the  wrong   provision
seeking   leave   of   the   court   to   place   on   record   the   additional
documents. However, considering the fact that thereafter, both
the learned Commercial Court as well as the High Court treated
and considered and even applied Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC as
amended   by   the   Commercial   Courts   Act   and   as   applicable   to
13

the suits filed before the commercial division, commercial court,
we   proceed   to   consider   the   application   submitted   by   the
appellant   herein   –   original   plaintiff,   as   if   the   same   was
submitted under Order XI Rule 1 (4) of the CPC.
7.3 It is  true  that  Order  XI  Rule  1  of  the  CPC   as  applicable  to  the
commercial   suits   brought   about   a   radical   change   and   it
mandates   the   plaintiff   to   file   a   list   of   all   documents,
photocopies of all documents,  in  its power, possession, control
or   custody,   pertaining   to   the   suit,   along   with   the   plaint   and   a
procedure   provided   under   Order   XI   Rule   1   is   required   to   be
followed by the plaintiff and the defendant, when the suit is the
commercial  suit.   Order   XI   Rule   1,  as   applicable   to   commercial
suits reads as under:­        
ORDER   XI   DISCLOSURE,   DISCOVERY   AND   INSPECTION
OF   DOCUMENTS   IN   SUITS   BEFORE   THE   COMMERCIAL
DIVISION OF A HIGH COURT OR A COMMERCIAL COURT 
1.   Disclosure   and   discovery   of   documents.—(1)   Plaintiff   shall
file  a   list  of  all documents  and  photocopies   of  all  documents,
in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the
suit, along with the plaint, including:— 
(a)  documents  referred to  and relied on by  the plaintiff in the
plaint; 
(b)   documents   relating   to   any   matter   in   question   in   the
proceedings,   in   the   power,   possession,   control   or   custody   of
the plaintiff, as on the  date of filing  the plaint, irrespective  of
whether the same is in support of or adverse to the plaintiff’s
case; 
14

(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by
plaintiffs and relevant only–– 
(i) for the cross­examination of the defendant’s witnesses, or 
(ii) in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequent
to the filing of the plaint, or 
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. 
(2)   The   list   of   documents   filed   with   the   plaint   shall   specify
whether   the   documents   in   the   power,   possession,   control   or
custody   of   the   plaintiff   are   originals,   office   copies   or
photocopies   and   the   list   shall   also   set   out   in   brief,   details   of
parties   to   each   document,   mode   of   execution,   issuance   or
receipt and line of custody of each document. 
(3)   The   plaint   shall   contain   a   declaration   on   oath   from   the
plaintiff   that   all   documents   in   the   power,   possession,   control
or   custody   of   the   plaintiff,   pertaining   to   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   proceedings   initiated   by   him   have   been
disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that
the plaintiff does not have any other  documents in its power,
possession, control or custody. 
Explanation.––A declaration on oath under this sub­rule shall
be   contained   in   the   Statement   of   Truth   as   set   out   in   the
Appendix. 
(4) In case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely
on   additional  documents,   as  part   of  the   above  declaration   on
oath and subject to grant of such leave by Court, the plaintiff
shall   file   such   additional   documents   in   Court,   within   thirty
days   of   filing   the   suit,   along   with   a   declaration   on   oath   that
the   plaintiff   has   produced   all   documents   in   its   power,
possession,   control   or   custody,   pertaining   to   the   facts   and
circumstances of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff and
that   the   plaintiff   does   not   have   any   other   documents,   in   its
power, possession, control or custody. 
(5)   The   plaintiff   shall   not   be   allowed   to   rely   on   documents,
which   were   in   the   plaintiff’s   power,   possession,   control   or
custody   and   not   disclosed   along   with   plaint   or   within   the
extended   period   set   out   above,   save   and   except   by   leave   of
Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff
establishing   reasonable   cause   for   non–disclosure   along   with
the plaint. 
(6)   The   plaint   shall   set   out   details   of   documents,   which   the
plaintiff   believes   to   be   in   the   power,   possession,   control   or
custody of the defendant and which the plaintiff wishes to rely
upon   and   seek   leave   for   production   thereof   by   the   said
defendant. 
15

(7)   The   defendant   shall   file   a   list   of   all   documents   and
photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control
or   custody,   pertaining   to   the   suit,   along   with   the   written
statement or with its counterclaim if any, including— 
(a)   the   documents   referred   to   and   relied   on   by   the   defendant
in the written statement;
(b)   the   documents   relating   to   any   matter   in   question   in   the
proceeding in the power, possession, control or custody of the
defendant, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or
adverse to the defendant’s defence; 
(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by
the defendants and relevant only–– 
(i) for the cross­examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, 
(ii) in answer to any case set up by the plaintiff subsequent to
the filing of the plaint, or 
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. 
(8)   The   list   of   documents   filed   with   the   written   statement   or
counterclaim   shall   specify   whether   the   documents,   in   the
power,   possession,   control   or   custody   of   the   defendant,   are
originals,   office   copies   or   photocopies   and   the   list   shall   also
set   out   in   brief,   details   of   parties   to   each   document   being
produced   by   the   defendant,   mode   of   execution,   issuance   or
receipt and line of custody of each document. 
(9)   The   written   statement   or   counterclaim   shall   contain   a
declaration on oath made by the deponent that all documents
in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant,
save   and   except   for   those   set   out   in   sub­rule   (7)   (c)   (iii)
pertaining   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   proceedings
initiated   by   the   plaintiff   or   in   the   counterclaim,   have   been
disclosed   and   copies   thereof   annexed   with   the   written
statement   or   counterclaim   and   that   the   defendant   does   not
have   in   its   power,   possession,   control   or   custody,   any   other
documents. 
(10)   Save   and   except   for   sub­rule   (7)   (c)   (iii),   defendant   shall
not   be   allowed   to   rely   on   documents,   which   were   in   the
defendant’s   power,   possession,   control   or   custody   and   not
disclosed   along   with   the   written   statement   or   counterclaim,
save   and   except   by   leave   of   Court   and   such   leave   shall   be
granted   only   upon   the   defendant   establishing   reasonable
cause   for   non­disclosure   along   with   the   written   statement   or
counterclaim. 
(11)   The   written   statement   or   counterclaim   shall   set   out
details   of   documents   in   the   power,   possession,   control   or
custody   of   the   plaintiff,   which   the   defendant   wishes   to   rely
16

upon and which have not been disclosed with the plaint, and
call upon the plaintiff to produce the same. 
(12)   Duty   to   disclose   documents,   which   have   come   to   the
notice of a party, shall continue till disposal of the suit.
Order   XI   Rule   1   (3)   provides   that   the   plaint   shall   contain   a
declaration on oath from the plaintiff that all documents in the
power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining
to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   proceeding   initiated   by
him   have   been   disclosed   and   copies   thereof   annexed   with   the
plaint, and that the plaintiff does not have other documents in
its   power,   possession,   control   or   custody.     As   per   the
explanation   under   Order   11   Rule   1   (3)   a   declaration   on   oath
under   this   sub­rule   shall   be   contained   in   the   Statement   of
Truth as set out in the Appendix. Appendix I with respect to the
statement of truth reads as under:­
‘‘APPENDIX­I
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
(Under First Schedule, Order VI­Rule 15A and Order XI­ Rule
3) 
I ­­­­­ the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under: 
1.   I   am   the   party   in   the   above   suit   and   competent   to   swear
this affidavit. 
2.   I   am   sufficiently   conversant   with   the   facts   of   the   case   and
have   also   examined   all   relevant   documents   and   records   in
relation thereto. 
3. I say that the statements made in ­­­­­paragraphs are true
to my knowledge and statements made in ­­­­­paragraphs are
17

based   on   information   received   which   I   believe   to   be   correct
and   statements   made   in   ­­­paragraphs   are   based   on   legal
advice. 
4. I say that there is no false statement or concealment of any
material   fact,   document   or   record   and   I   have   included
information   that   is   according   to   me,   relevant   for   the   present
suit. 
5.   I   say   that   all   documents   in   my   power,   possession,   control
or   custody,   pertaining   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the
proceedings   initiated   by   me   have   been   disclosed   and   copies
thereof   annexed   with   the   plaint,   and   that   I   do   not   have   any
other documents in my power, possession, control or custody.
6.   I   say   that   the   above­mentioned   pleading   comprises   of   a
total of ­­­­ pages, each of which has been duly signed by me. 
7.   I   state   that   the   Annexures   hereto   are   true   copies   of   the
documents referred to and relied upon by me. 
8.   I   say   that   I   am   aware   that   for   any   false   statement   or
concealment,   I   shall   be   liable   for   action   taken   against   me
under the law for the time being in force. 
Place: 
Date: 
DEPONENT 
VERIFICATION
I,   ……………………….   do   hereby   declare   that   the   statements
made above are true to my knowledge. 
Verified at [place] on this [date] 
DEPONENT.”.]
 
Therefore,   the   declaration   on   oath   shall   be   part   of   the   plaint.
The   plaintiff   has   to   declare   on   oath   that   all   documents   in
its/his power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the
facts and circumstances of the proceedings, initiated by him/it
have   been   disclosed   and   the   copies   thereof   annexed   with   the
plaint,   and   that   he   does   not   have   any   other   documents   in   his
power,   possession,   control   or   custody.   Therefore   as   such   it   is
18

mandated   by   Order   XI   Rule   1   for   the   plaintiff   to   disclose   and
produce all the documents in his power, possession, control or
custody,   pertaining   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the
proceedings. 
7.4 However,   the   additional   documents   can   be   permitted   to   be
bought   on   record   with   the   leave   of   the   court   as   provided   in
Order XI Rule 1 (4). Order XI Rule 1 (4) provides that in case of
urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional
documents   as   part   of   the   above   declaration   on   oath   [as
provided   under   Order   11   Rule   1   (3)]   and   subject   to   grant   of
such   leave   by   Court,   the   plaintiff   shall   file   such   additional
documents in Court, within thirty  days of filing the suit, along
with   a   declaration   on   oath   that   the   plaintiff   has   produced   all
documents   in   its   power,   possession,   control   or   custody,
pertaining   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   proceedings
initiated by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not have any
other documents, in its power, possession, control or custody.  
7.5 Order  XI  Rule 1 (5) further  provides that the plaintiff shall  not
be   allowed   to   rely   on   documents,   which   were   in   the   plaintiff’s
19

power,   possession,   control   or   custody   and   not   disclosed   along
with   plaint   or   within   the   extended   period   set   out   above,   save
and   except   by   leave   of   Court   and   such   leave   shall   be   granted
only   upon   the   plaintiff   establishing   reasonable   cause   for   non
disclosure along with the plaint. Therefore on combined reading
of Order XI Rule 1 (4) read with Order XI Rule 1 (5), it emerges
that   (i)   in   case   of   urgent   filings   the   plaintiff   may   seek   leave   to
rely   on   additional   documents;   (ii)   within   thirty  days   of   filing  of
the suit; (iii) making out a reasonable cause for non disclosure
along with plaint. 
7.6 Therefore   a   further   thirty   days   time   is   provided   to   the   plaintiff
to   place   on   record   or   file   such   additional   documents   in   court
and a declaration on oath is required to be filed by the plaintiff
as was required as per Order XI Rule 1 (3) if for any reasonable
cause for non disclosure along with the plaint, the documents,
which   were   in   the   plaintiff’s   power,   possession,   control   or
custody and not disclosed along  with plaint. Therefore plaintiff
has   to   satisfy   and   establish   a   reasonable   cause   for   non
disclosure   along   with   plaint.   However,   at   the   same   time,   the
20

requirement   of   establishing   the   reasonable   cause   for   non
disclosure  of   the   documents  along   with   the   plaint   shall   not   be
applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that
those   documents   have   been   found   subsequently   and   in   fact
were not in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody
at the time when the plaint was filed. Therefore Order XI Rule 1
(4)   and   Order   XI   Rule   1   (5)   applicable   to   the   commercial   suit
shall   be   applicable   only   with   respect   to   the   documents   which
were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not
disclosed   along   with   plaint.     Therefore,   the   rigour   of
establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with
plaint   may   not   arise   in   the   case   where   the   additional
documents   sought   to   be   produced/relied   upon   are   discovered
subsequent to the filing of the plaint. 
8. Having   considered   the   statutory   provisions   in   detail,   the   order
passed   by   the   learned   Commercial   Court,   confirmed   by   the
High Court, rejecting the application of the plaintiff for leave to
rely   on   the   additional   documents   is   required   to   be   tested   and
considered. 
21

8.1 It   emerges   from   the   record   that   the   first   suit   was   filed   by   the
plaintiff   in   the   month   of   October,   2018,   bearing   TM   No.236   of
2018, restraining the defendant from infringing and passing­off
plaintiff’s Trade Marks. That an ex­parte interim injunction was
passed   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff   by   order   dated   29.10.2018.   It
appears having realized and found that the earlier suit was not
in   consonance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Commercial   Courts
Act,   the   plaintiff   withdrew   the   said   suit   being   TM   No.236   of
2018   on   27.07.2019   with   liberty   to   file   a   fresh   suit   as   per   the
Commercial   Courts   Act,   2015.   Therefore,   the   second   suit   was
filed   on   31.08.2019   and   within   a   period   of   thirty   days   from
filing of the second suit the appellant herein – original plaintiff
preferred   the   present   application   seeking   leave   of   the   court   to
file additional documents. In the application, it was specifically
mentioned  that  so far  as  the invoices are concerned, the  same
were not in its possession at the time of the filing of the plaint
and so far as the other documents are concerned they were not
filed   due   to   they   being   voluminous.   Therefore,   so   far   as   the
invoices   sought   to   be   relied   on/produced   as   additional
22

documents   ought   to   have   been   permitted   to   be   relied
on/produced   as   it   was   specifically   asserted   that   they   were   not
in his possession at the time of filing of the plaint/suit. 
8.2 The   submissions   on   behalf   of   the   defendant   that   the   cause
shown   for   non   production   was   an   afterthought   cannot   be
accepted   for   the   simple   reason   that   the   application   was   filed
within   a   period   of   thirty   days   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the
second   suit   and   at   the   time   when   the   application   for   interim
injunction  under  Order   XXXIX  Rule  1  was  not   fully  heard  and
kept for orders. 
8.3 Even   the   reason   given   by   the   learned   Commercial   Court   that
the   invoices   being   suspicious   and   therefore   not   granting   leave
to produce the said invoices cannot be accepted. At the stage of
granting   leave   to   place   on   record   additional   documents   the
court   is   not   required   to   consider   the   genuineness   of   the
documents/additional   documents,   the   stage   at   which
genuineness of the documents to be considered during the trial
and/or   even   at   the   stage   of   deciding   the   application   under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 that too while considering prima facie case.
23

Therefore, the learned Commercial Court ought to have granted
leave   to   the   plaintiff   to   rely   on/produce   the   invoices   as
mentioned in the application as additional documents. 
8.4 Now,   so   far   as   the   other   documents   sought   to   be   relied
on/produced   as   additional   documents   other   than   the   invoices
are   concerned   the   same   stands   on   different   footing.   It   is   not
disputed   and  in   fact  it  was  specifically   admitted  and   so   stated
in   the   application   that   those   additional   documents   other   than
the   invoices   were   in   their   possession   but   not   produced   being
voluminous and that the suit was filed urgently. However, it is
to   be   noted   that   when   the   second   suit   was   filed,   it   cannot   be
said to be urgent filing of the suit for injunction, as the first suit
was   filed   in  the   month  of   October,   2018   and   there   was   an  ex­
parte   ad   interim   injunction   vide   order   dated   29.10.2018   and
thereafter   plaintiff   withdrew   the   said   first   suit   on   27.07.2019
with liberty to file a fresh suit as per the Commercial Courts Act
and the second suit came to be filed on 31.08.2019 after period
of one month of the withdrawal of first suit.   Therefore the case
on behalf of the plaintiff that when the second suit was filed, it
24

was urgently filed therefore, the additional documents sought to
be   relied   upon   other   than   the   invoices   were   not   filed   as   the
same   were   voluminous   cannot   be   accepted.   And   therefore   as
such   Order   XI   Rule   1   (4)   shall   not   be   applicable,   though   the
application   was   filed   within   thirty   days   of   filing   of   the   second
suit.   While   seeking   leave   of   the   court   to   rely   on   documents,
which were in his power, possession, control or custody and not
disclosed   along   with   plaint   or   within   the   extended   period   set
out   in   Order   XI   Rule   1   (4),   the   plaintiff   has   to   establish   the
reasonable cause for non disclosure along with plaint.
8.5 In   view   of   the   facts   and   circumstances   narrated   hereinabove
and in view of the filing of the first suit in the month of October,
2018; the ex­parte ad interim  injunction order in favour of the
plaintiff   dated   29.10.2018;   withdrawal   of   the   first   suit   on
27.07.2019   and   subsequently   the   filing   of   the   second   suit   on
31.08.2019,   non   filing   of   the   additional   documents   other   than
the invoices on the ground of they being voluminous cannot be
said   to   be   a   reasonable   cause   for   non   disclosure/filing   along
with  plaint.  There was sufficient  time gap between  the filing  of
25

the first suit and filing of the second suit i.e. approximately 10
months   and   therefore   when   the   second   suit   was   filed   the
plaintiff was having sufficient time after filing of the first suit, to
file   the   additional   documents   other   than   the   invoices   at   the
time   when   the   second   suit   was   filed.   Therefore   as   such,   both
the courts below have rightly not permitted the plaintiff to rely
upon   the   documents,   other   than   the   invoices   as   additional
documents in exercise of the powers under Order XI Rule 1 (4)
read with Order XI Rule 1 (5). 
9. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
plaintiff can be permitted to rely on the documents in the form
of   invoices   as   mentioned   in   the   application   as   additional
documents.   However,   such   production   shall   not   affect   the
outcome   of   interim   injunction   application   submitted   under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC, which as such is reported to be
kept for orders. 
10. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
present   appeal   is   partly   allowed.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court confirming the order passed by
26

the   learned   Commercial   Court   dismissing   the   application
submitted   by   the   plaintiff   to   rely   on/produce   the   documents
mentioned   in   application   dated   13.09.2019,   as   additional
documents is quashed and set aside to the extent not granting
leave   to   the   appellant   herein   –   original   plaintiff   to   rely
on/produce   the   invoices   mentioned   in   the   application   dated
13.09.2019   and   consequently   the   leave   is   granted   to   the
appellant   herein   –   original   plaintiff   to   produce/rely   on   the
invoices mentioned in the application as additional documents.
Rest   of   the   order   not   granting   leave   to   appellant   herein   –
original   plaintiff   to   rely   on/produce   the   documents   other   than
the invoices as observed hereinabove, as additional evidence is
hereby   confirmed.   The   present   appeal   is   accordingly   partly
allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.  
…………………………………J.
                   (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
             (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi, 
September  15, 2021
27