CM(M)-IPD 24/2025 $~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010345282025 + CM(M)-IPD 24/2025 M/S. PSYCHOTROPIC INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Mr. Vinay K. Padam, Ms. Yasheswini and Mr. Rishabh, Advocates. versus M/S. NOVITA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sitikanth Nayak and Ms. Pratiksha Thakur, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 07.09.2026 By way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi in CS (COMM) No.312/2020, whereby their application under Order 11 Rule 1(10) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking to bring on record an additional document has been dismissed by the learned trial court. 2. Notice on this petition was issued on 28.05.2025. 3. Reply and rejoinder have been filed. 4. Written submissions have also been placed on record by the parties. 5. Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (defendant in the suit) submits, that at the stage of filing their written This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:01:32 CM(M)-IPD 24/2025 statement, the petitioner (defendant in the suit) had filed a set of documents under an index dated 06.01.2021, which referred to 02 reports rendered by two different local commissioners appointed at the petitioner’s instance. 6. Learned counsel submits however, that by sheer inadvertence and mistake, only one of the local commissioners’ reports was filed by the petitioner whereas the other local commissioner’s report dated 25.10.2019 was, by omission, not filed on record. 7. Counsel further submits that the local commissioner, whose report was inadvertently not filed on record, had executed a commission at the premises of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit); and that report is relevant and material for the learned trial court to decide the connection and relationship between the respondent, M/s. Novita Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, and certain other entities, viz., M/s Syncom Healthcare Ltd. and M/s Theta Labs Pvt. Ltd. 8. That apart, learned counsel submits, that the said local commissioner’s report is an admitted document inasmuch as it forms part of the record of an earlier execution petition, in which proceedings the local commissioner was appointed and the report was filed before that court. 9. Most importantly, learned counsel for the petitioner points-out, that both local commissioners’ reports were clearly referred-to in the list of documents filed by the petitioner before the learned trial court at Serial No.8 in Volume 1 under cover of index dated 06.01.2021. Counsel argues that accordingly, the petitioner had in fact intended to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:01:32 CM(M)-IPD 24/2025 place on record copies of both reports but by sheer inadvertent mistake, only one of the local commissioners’ reports came to be filed and the other was left-out. 10. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court be set-aside and the petitioner be permitted to bring on record the report of the second local commissioner. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) submits, that as observed by the learned trial court in the impugned order, the petitioner was unable to provide any reasonable cause for having failed to file the report on record on earlier occasions, and since the suit is a commercial suit, the learned trial court was correct in having declined to take on record the said document. 12. It is further pointed-out by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the learned trial court has also expressly noted that no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner as to why the so- called inadvertent error, of having failed to file the second local commissioner’s report, was not detected at the time of filing a written statement. 13. It is noticed that the essential reason given by the learned trial court for dismissing the petitioner’s application in paras 21 and 22 of the impugned order, is the following: “21. In the present case, no cause much less any reasonable cause has been mentioned by the defendant in the entire application as to why the document could not be filed alongwith the written statement. Admittedly the document which the defendant intends to place on record is the report of the Local Commissioner dated This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:01:32 CM(M)-IPD 24/2025 25.10.2019 but no material has been placed on record from which it can be inferred that the said document was not available with the defendant at the time of filing of the written statement. The defendant has failed to show any reasonable cause for non- disclosure of the document along with the written statement. “22. Though the Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that it was on account of inadvertence that the said document, which is stated to be necessary for the proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties, could not be filed. However, once the defendant has failed to give any reasonable cause, which is sine qua non, for maintaining application under Order 11 Rule 1(10) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for not filing the document along with the written statement, the filing of the document at this stage, is not permissible in terms of the statutory provisions of Order 11 Rule 1(10) of CPC, as applicable to commercial suits. This Court cannot give premium to the inadvertence on the part of the defendant, which is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. The statutory provisions are salutary and the court is duty bound to ensure that the same are abided in letter and spirit. No doubt, this court is not oblivious to the fact that the procedure is handmaid of justice but then fact of the matter remains that the procedure cannot be allowed to be abused by a party so as to take advantage of its own inadvertence.” 14. Upon considering the averments in the petition, having perused the record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that though the learned trial court has expressed that no reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner in their application under Order 11 Rule 1(10) of the CPC, it is seen that the petitioner has clearly explained that it was by sheer inadvertent error that only one of the local commissioners’ reports came to be filed while the other report namely, local commissioner’s report dated 25.10.2019, was not filed alongwith the written statement. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:01:32 CM(M)-IPD 24/2025 15. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that in the list of documents filed alongwith the written statement under cover of index dated 06.01.2021, the petitioner has in fact referred to two reports of the local commissioners, which adds credence to the petitioner’s contention that the failure to enclose one of the two reports was inadvertent. 16. Though the learned trial court has observed that the petitioner had failed to place any material on record from which it can be inferred that the document in question was not available with the petitioner at the time of the filing of the written statement, it is clear that it was not even the petitioner’s case that local commissioner’s report dated 25.10.2019 was not in their possession earlier. 17. What also persuades this court to hold in the petitioner’s favour is that the local commissioner’s report in question was part of the record of the executing court, which is borne-out by the fact that what is being sought to be placed on record is a certified copy from the record of the executing court. 18. While the provisions of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are to be respected, in the opinion of this court, the overarching principle that procedural provisions must not obliterate larger considerations of justice, cannot be given a go-by, especially when the petitioner's plea that their failure to file the second report was an inadvertent error, is borne-out from the record. 19. Furthermore, this court is also of the view that the second local commissioner's report is relevant and material for a just decision of the case; and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:01:32 CM(M)-IPD 24/2025 local commissioner’s report dated 25.10.2019 is taken on record at this stage. 20. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, thereby setting-aside impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned trial court in CS (COMM) No.312/2020. 21. Local Commissioner’s report dated 25.10.2019 filed by the petitioner (defendant) is directed to be taken on record. 22. This order shall however be subject to the petitioner paying costs in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the ‘Nai Disha Educational and Cultural Society’, Plot No.33-B/9, Kishangarh (near Bhattewala Chowk), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, within 04 weeks. 23. Proof of payment of costs be placed on record within 01 week thereafter. 24. The Registry is directed to verify compliance; and to bring to the notice of this court any default in respect thereof. 25. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. A. J. BHAMBHANI, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/ak This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:01:32