2025:JHHC:25231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 503 of 2025 ----- 1. M/s City Alloys Private Limited through its Managing Director namely, Vikash Kumar Gaddhyan, having its registered office at Hanuman Charai, P.O. & P.S.-Barakar, Dist.-West Burdwan, West Bengal 2. Vikash Kumar Gaddhyan, S/o Basudeo Gaddhyan Managing Director of M/s City Alloys Private Limited, R/o Nirsa Cum Chirkunda, Chirkunda, P.O.-Chirkunda, P.S. Chirkunda, Dist.-Dhanbad 3. Narendra Gopal Singhal, S/o Bajrang Lal Singhal Director of M/S Alloys Private Limited, R/o Hanuman Charai, Barakar, Roshna, P.O.- Barakar, P.S.-Barakar, Dist.-Bardman … …. Petitioners Versus M/s Hari Om & Co. through its Proprietor Shri Ajay Kumar, S/o Late Ramjee Saw having its factory at B-2, Industrial Area, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Dist.-Saraikela-Kharsawan … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Pasari, Advocate For the Opp. party : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate ----- Oral Order 08 / Dated : 25.08.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the issue of maintainability of the instant civil misc. petition arising out of an “order” passed by the Commercial Court. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Commercial Appeal No. 07/2023, wherein it has been held that under Proviso to Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, that appeal will only lie against such “order” which has been enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Since the statement of truth is under challenge, which is not appealable under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 therefore, instant civil misc. petition is maintainable. 3. Considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, this civil misc. petition is held to be maintainable. 4. This civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the 2025:JHHC:25231 2 Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.04.2025 passed in Commercial Suit No. 30/2022 on 23.01.2025 under Order VI Rule 15-A and Order XI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016) by which a petition of the plaintiffs for accepting the statement of truth was allowed with an observation that the petitioner/defendant will have opportunity to raise this issue at the later stage of trial. 5. The petitioners are the defendants in Commercial Suit No. 30/2022 which has been filed for recovery of money. Earlier an amendment was allowed by the Trial Court under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was challenged by the defendants/petitioners in C.M.P. No. 436/2024. The said impugned order of amendment was set aside. However, the plaintiff was given opportunity to file the statement of truth as provided in a prescribed format of the schedule under Order VI Rule 15-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In pursuance of the said order, the statement of truth (Annexure-4) has been filed which was challenged by the petitioners/defendants, inter alia, on the ground that there was violation of para-5 of the said statement of truth, wherein it has been stated that there were no documents except those which were filed with the plaint. However, at the stage of trial on 07.02.2023, 40 documents were filed which were not annexed with the plaint filed on 26.09.2022. In view of this, the petition was filed to non-suit the plaintiff for making a false statement. 6. The Trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that the statement of truth was filed on the permission given in the earlier civil misc. petition and this cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at this stage. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the filing of documents other than that referred to in the statement of truth at the time of filing of plaint was impermissible in view of specific provisions under Order XI of Rule 1 and 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inserted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that in the instant impugned order, the question of admissibility of the subsequent 2025:JHHC:25231 3 documents filed was not at issue. The short issue before the Court was whether the filing of subsequent documents can entail rejection of plaint and non-suit the plaintiff at the stage of inception. The Trial Court on that ground has rejected the petition of the petitioners. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I do not find any infirmity so far as the impugned order is concerned, as subsequent filing of a document not annexed with the plaint cannot serve as the basis of rejection of plaint or dismissing the suit on the threshold. This is an issue which can be considered at the later stage in the light of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This Civil Misc. Petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satyendra