- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 18118 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SOI DESIGN AND CREST LLP (A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCORPORATED UNDER LLP ACT, 2008) NO.A120, SMILESS GREENS, 4TH AVENUE, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 099. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER/DESIGNATED PARTNER SHRI MADHAVARAJ VENKOBA RAO SIRSI. 2. MRS. SANDHYA KUMARI SIRSI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O MADHAVARAJ VENKOBA RAO SIRSI, NO.A120, SMILESS GREENS, 4TH AVENUE, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 099. 3. SHRI MADHAVARAJ VENKOBA RAO SIRSI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O VENKOBA RAO, NO.A120, SMILESS GREENS, 4TH AVENUE, HUSKUR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 099. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 4. MS. NIHARIKA SIRSI, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O MADHAVARAJ VENKOBA RAO SIRSI, NO.A120, SMILESS GREENS, 4TH AVENUE, HUSKUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 099. PETITIONER NO.2 AND 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.3 (GPA HOLDER SHRI MADHAVARAJ VENKOBA RAO SIRSI) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI AMSHUMAN M., AND SRI SUSHANTH SHARMA B.S., ADVOCATES FOR SRI SUSHEN S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. SINE POWER TECHNOLOGIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. DEEPAK KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O V.MURALIDHAR, NO.116, GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004. 2. M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, DEVELOPER BIOCON SEZ, PROJECT: BICARA BUILDING NO. S-20A, 5TH FLOOR, PLOT NOS.2 AND 3, PARK IV, PHASE, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BOMMASANDRA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 JIGANI LINK ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 099. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.ANANTHANARAYANA, AND SRI D.G.CHINNAPPA GOWDA, ADVOCATES FOR R-1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT BENGALURU (CCH-87) DATED 02.06.2025 IN COM OS 1463/2023 IN IA NO. 2 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 02-06-2025 passed on I.A.No.2, by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru in Commercial O.S.No.1463 of 2023, whereby the additional documents sought to be produced by the 1st respondent/plaintiff are taken on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 2. Heard Sri M. Amshuman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N.Ananthanarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - A suit in Commercial O.S.No.1463 of 2023 is instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of money. The plaintiff adduces evidence and marks about 18 exhibits on 03-06-2023. Four additional documents are also marked by the plaintiff on 19-06-2024. It appears that an ex-parte judgment and decree is passed against the present defendants on 22-07-2024. As it was an ex-parte judgment, the petitioners preferred two miscellaneous petitions – Com.Misc.Nos.13 and 14 of 2025, seeking restoration of the suit. The concerned Court by its order dated 22-03-2025 allowed miscellaneous applications and restored the suit to its file for disposal in accordance with law. After restoration of the suit, the defendants, present petitioners filed their written statement. After filing of the written statement, the plaintiff prefers an application - I.A.No.2 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’) to produce certain documents / communications - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 to counter the defense set up in the written statement. This comes to be allowed. The allowing of the application has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff ought to have filed all the documents at the time of filing of the suit and cannot at a later point in time produce documents in fragment. He would contend that the Act does not permit such opportunity to file documents after filing of the written statement. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 / plaintiff submits that the statute itself permits production of documents in counter to what the defendants would plead in the written statement. He would seek to place reliance on plethora of judgments on the issue. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. Therefore, they would not require - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 any reiteration. The concerned Court in terms of the order impugned permits production of documents after filing of the written statement. The impugned order reads as follows: “10. In the case of Bela Creation (supra) the defendant along with his counter claim did not produced any documents but in the subsequent stage he had produced the invoice by assigning reason that Sri.Sunil Ojha, Advocate, who was appearing for the defendant did not produce the documents at the time of filing of the counter claim etc. In the case of Bharat Agarwal &Ors vs. NMDC Limited the similar reason was assigned by the plaintiff that the documents were in the custody of its Advocate. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid cases did not accept the reasons assigned and reject the applications. In the present case the plaintiff stated that he was under the impression that he had already filed the above document at the time of filing of the suit and after verification he learnt that these documents were not produced. The reason assigned is not acceptable. However, on this ground the present application cannot be rejected. The reason being that the defendant No.1 to 4 in their written statement contended that they have not placed any purchase order to supply the UPS and batters to the defendant No.5. According to the defendant No.1 to 4 there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 4. In order to establish the nexus between the transaction and the defendant No.1 to 4 the proposed documents are necessary. This circumstance certainly falls within the ambit of Order XI, Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of CPC which states that the plaintiff may produce any relevant document in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be permitted to produce additional documents.” (Emphasis added) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 The issue, whether the documents could be permitted to be produced by the plaintiff on filing of the written statement by the defendants need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This Court in JSM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED v. BRUNTON DEVELOPERS reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar. 1215 has held as follows: “7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. They would not require any reiteration. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass with regard to tenability of the order passed by the concerned Court. The dispute between the two leads the plaintiffs to file a commercial suit for eviction of the tenant, the petitioner. After cross- examination of PW-1, the plaintiffs prefer an application under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC. Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC reads as follows: “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 plaintiffs case; (c) nothing in this rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant only— - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 (i) for the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses, or (ii) in answer to any case setup by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or (iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” (Emphasis supplied) The statutory provision is couched in permissive and enabling terms and mandates that the plaintiff shall file a list of documents in its power, possession, control and custody along with the plaint, but renders certain flexibility, it thus carves out exception to the general mandate of early disclosure. Sub-clause (c) directs that nothing in this Rule shall apply to the documents produced by the plaintiffs and relevant only for cross-examination of defendant's witnesses in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint. The plaintiffs, in the case at hand, invoke Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) to prefer the application. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the written statement and during the cross-examination certain factors are brought out by the defendant with regard to tenancy or communications regarding tenancy. It, therefore, becomes necessary to file the application seeking production of documents. The application comes to be allowed by the following reasoning: “….….…. REASONS 7. Point No. 1:— Perused the records this application is filed at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff intended to produce the additional documents i.e., statement of account of the 1st plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff, Email correspondences between the plaintiff and defendant showing the monthly net sales of the restaurant run by the defendant and the details of the payments made by the defendants to the plaintiffs and partnership deed of the plaintiffs. The document that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 are sought to be produced by the plaintiffs are bank statements which date back to 2016. Since they are old documents, the plaintiffs couldn't trace them immediately and file with the plaint and further the plaintiffs are seeking to produce the statement of accounts showing that the rents paid by the defendant from 2016 till the defaults began in 2018 and email correspondences, which are crucial to affirm the rent understanding between the plaintiffs and defendant and further taken a contention that, in their written statement raised certain claims and defenses which necessitate the production of the documents accompanied with this application to substantiate the plaintiffs case and to counter the defendant's allegation. Further one of the documents that is sought to be produced is in response to a question that was posed by the Defendants counsel during cross-examination of PW.1. These documents were in the custody of his accountant Mr. Sunil Swamy. 8. On the other hand the defendant contention that, the email correspondence and bank statement are nor supported by a certificate under Section 63 of the BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam 2023. Non- production of certificate at the stage is not a ground to reject the application. The certificate is compulsory for marking of the documents. At this stage, the question is whether the additional document produced by the plaintiff cannot be allowed, whether it is helpful for adjudication of this case. Of course, these documents are produced at belated stage. But these documents are produced in order to counter assertions made by the Defendant in the written statement. 9. Order 11 Rule 1 clause c (ii) reads as under: “In answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequently to filing of the plaint.”” (Emphasis supplied) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29490 WP No. 18118 of 2025 The entire statute and the law in regard to production of documents after filing of the written statement is considered in the aforesaid judgment. In that light, no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned Court, which would warrant interference. 8. Petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93