[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH i) CR-3531-2026 Bestech India Private Limited ...Pe))oner Versus Fakira Singh (now subs)tuted by his LRs) and another ...Respondents ii) CR-3536-2026 Bestech India Private Limited ...Pe))oner Versus Ashok Kumar and another ...Respondents Reserved on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced on: 16.07.2026 Pronounced fully/opera)ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for the pe##oner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present revision pe##ons are directed against two similar orders both dated 19.02.2026 in two cases of same nature, passed by the learned Addi#onal District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, whereby an applica#on moved by the pe##oner – defendant under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to commercial disputes, has been partly allowed. 2. While permi;ng the pe##oner to place on record three YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [2] documents, the Commercial Court declined permission qua two documents, namely, the duly stamped and signed audited balance sheet for the financial year 2021-22 and the Corporate Social Responsibility Report, both dated 27.09.2022 [Annexures P-14 & P-15]. 3.1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the pe##oner submits that the Commercial Court has misconstrued the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Pe##on preferred by the pe##oner. It is argued that although the earlier applica#on under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC seeking permission to produce thirteen documents had been rejected by the Commercial Court and the said order was affirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet the Supreme Court specifically clarified that dismissal of the Special Leave Pe##on would not preclude the pe##oner from filing a fresh applica#on in respect of produc#on of such documents, which were not in the power, possession, control or custody of the pe##oner on the date of filing of the wriEen statement. 3.2 It is contended that pursuant to the aforesaid liberty, the pe##oner confined its subsequent applica#on to five documents, which included three documents forming part of earlier applica#on. Out of those, the Commercial Court itself permiEed produc#on of three documents, while declining permission only regarding the audited balance sheet for the financial year 2021-22 and the CSR Report. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the said approach is legally unsustainable. 3.3 It is urged that the original wriEen statement had been filed on 03.03.2022. Subsequently, an applica#on for amendment of the wriEen statement having been allowed, the amended wriEen statement filed on 11.04.2024 related back to the date of filing of the original wriEen statement. Since the two disputed documents admiEedly came into existence on 27.09.2022, i.e., subsequent to 03.03.2022, they could not YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [3] have been in the power, possession or custody of the pe##oner on the date of filing of the wriEen statement. It is, therefore, argued that the Commercial Court commiEed a patent error in refusing permission to produce the said documents. 3.4 In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddalingamma and another versus Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561; Sampath Kumar versus Ayyakannu and another, (2002) 7 SCC 559; Prithi Pal Singh and another versus Amrik Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 576; and Vasant Balu Pa)l and others versus Mohan Hirachand Shah and others, (2016) 1 SCC 530, to contend that an amended pleading ordinarily relates back to the date of the original pleading. 4.1 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the pe##oner seeks to enlarge the scope of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is argued that the Supreme Court consciously declined interference with the earlier order and merely permiEed filing of a fresh applica#on regarding documents, which were not in the pe##oner's power, possession, control or custody on the relevant date. It is submiEed that both the disputed documents were admiEedly prepared on 27.09.2022 and were available with the pe##oner much before the amended wriEen statement came to be filed. Therefore, the pe##oner cannot invoke the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4.2 Learned counsel has drawn aEen#on towards the admission of pe##oner that applica#on for amendment of wriEen statement was moved on 11.04.2023, which clearly means that even on that date, the documents Annexures P-14 and P-15, having come into existence in September 2022 were within the knowledge of the pe##oner. 4.3 Learned counsel further submits that the Commercial Courts YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [4] Act prescribes a stringent regime of disclosure under Order XI CPC, the object whereof is to ensure complete and #mely disclosure of all documents at the earliest stage so as to avoid delay in adjudica#on of commercial disputes. The pe##oner having failed to disclose the documents despite their availability cannot be permiEed to produce them at the stage when the plain#ffs had already concluded their evidence and the case had reached the stage of defence evidence. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in ‘M/s Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Standard Chartered Bank and others’ Law Finder Doc Id # 2937237. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. 6. The controversy mainly revolves around the interpreta#on of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the true scope of Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC as applicable to commercial disputes. 7. It is not disputed that an earlier applica#on moved by the pe##oner seeking permission to produce thirteen addi#onal documents stood rejected by the Commercial Court. The said order was affirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Pe##on on 19.05.2025 vide Annexure P-12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in the order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) of this court but clarified that the dismissal would not come in the way of the pe##oner filing a fresh applica#on in respect of produc#on of such documents, which were not in its power, possession, control or custody on the date of filing of the wriEen statement. 8. Thus, the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was neither uncondi#onal nor unrestricted. It was expressly circumscribed by the condi#on incorporated therein. Consequently, the Commercial Court was required to examine whether the documents sought to be produced YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [5] sa#sfied the condi#on s#pulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. In this regard, the en#re edifice of the pe##oner's argument rests upon the doctrine of rela#on back. There can be no dispute regarding the proposi#on laid down in the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel that ordinarily an amendment of pleadings relates back to the date of ins#tu#on of the original pleading. However, the doctrine of rela#on back is not an inflexible rule of universal applica#on. It is merely a procedural principle evolved to avoid mul#plicity of li#ga#on and is always subject to the statutory scheme governing the proceedings as also to the nature and object of the order under which the amendment is permiEed. 10. In the present case, the proceedings arise under the Commercial Courts Act, which has introduced an en#rely different procedural regime by subs#tu#ng Order XI of the Code. The amended provisions cast a mandatory obliga#on upon every party to disclose all documents in its power, possession, control or custody along with its pleadings. Rule 1(10) specifically bars reliance upon documents not so disclosed unless reasonable cause is established for such non-disclosure. 11. The legisla#ve intent is evident. Commercial disputes are required to proceed on the basis of complete disclosure at the earliest stage. Piecemeal produc#on of documents is discouraged so that trial is not delayed by successive applica#ons for produc#on of evidence. 12. Viewed in that backdrop, the expression "wriEen statement" occurring in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be read divorced from the statutory obliga#ons imposed by Order XI. Once the pe##oner sought amendment of the wriEen statement and filed an amended wriEen statement incorpora#ng its defence, the amended wriEen statement became the opera#ve pleading on the basis whereof the suit was thereaMer required to proceed. Consequently, the obliga#on of disclosure YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [6] necessarily extended to all documents then available with the pe##oner. 13. There is yet another aspect of the maEer. The disclosure regime introduced under Order XI by the Commercial Courts Act is not exhausted upon the filing of the original wriEen statement. The obliga#on cast upon a party to disclose all documents in its power, possession, control or custody is a con#nuing procedural obliga#on co-extensive with the pleadings on record. Whenever a Court permits amendment of pleadings and an amended wriEen statement is filed, the amended pleading becomes the founda#on of the defence and the obliga#on of disclosure necessarily extends to all documents then available with the party. To hold otherwise would defeat the very object of the Commercial Courts Act. 14. A li#gant could conveniently obtain amendment of the wriEen statement and yet claim exemp#on from disclosure of documents, which admiEedly existed on the date of filing of the amended wriEen statement by relying upon the doctrine of rela#on back. Such an interpreta#on would render the statutory discipline incorporated in Order XI largely o#ose and would encourage piecemeal disclosure, contrary to the legisla#ve intent of ensuring early, complete and candid disclosure in commercial li#ga#on. The doctrine of rela#on back, being a rule of procedural convenience, cannot be permiEed to dilute or override the mandatory obliga#ons created by a subsequent statutory framework specifically enacted to secure expedi#on and certainty in adjudica#on of commercial disputes. 15. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, cannot be read as laying down that for every statutory purpose an amended pleading must invariably be treated as having been filed on the date of the original pleading. Those decisions were rendered in en#rely different factual and statutory se;ngs while considering the effect of amendment on the maintainability of proceedings or limita#on. None of them considered the special disclosure obliga#ons introduced under Order YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [7] XI of the Code as subs#tuted by the Commercial Courts Act. The ra#o of those judgments, therefore, cannot be extended to dilute the mandatory disclosure regime applicable to commercial disputes. 16. Acceptance of the pe##oner's submission would virtually defeat the object of Order XI. It would mean that even where documents were admiEedly available on the date when the amended wriEen statement was filed, a party could s#ll avoid disclosure by tracing the pleading back to the date of the original wriEen statement. Such an interpreta#on would not only frustrate the object of the Commercial Courts Act but would also permit a party to achieve indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly under Rule 1(10). 17. Likewise, the submission that the Commercial Court has acted contrary to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not tenable. The liberty contained in the order dated 19.05.2025 cannot be read in isola#on. It has to be construed harmoniously with the statutory provisions under which the applica#on itself was maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court merely removed the procedural embargo created by the earlier rejec#on and permiEed the pe##oner to maintain a fresh applica#on, if the documents sa#sfied the condi#on men#oned therein. The order did not dispense with the statutory requirements of Order XI Rule 1(10), nor did it direct that every document coming into existence aMer the original wriEen statement must necessarily be received in evidence. The Commercial Court was s#ll required to examine whether the documents sa#sfied the statutory parameters and whether reasonable cause for their previous non-disclosure had been established. The impugned order reflects precisely such an exercise and, therefore, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 18. S#ll further, it is not disputed before this Court that both the disputed documents were prepared on 27.09.2022. Equally undisputed is YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [8] the fact that when the amended wriEen statement came to be filed, both these documents were already available with the pe##oner. The pe##oner has failed to furnish any sa#sfactory explana#on as to why these documents were not disclosed at that stage. The requirement under Order XI Rule 1(10) is not merely to establish relevance of the documents but also to show reasonable cause for their earlier non-disclosure. The pe##oner has failed to discharge the said burden. 19. There is one more aspect to be no#ced. The audited balance sheet for the financial year 2021-22 had already formed part of the earlier applica#on, which stood rejected and the said rejec#on aEained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The clarifica#on issued while dismissing the Special Leave Pe##on cannot be construed as reopening of the issues, which had already aEained finality. The liberty was consciously confined only to the documents not within the pe##oner's power, possession, control or custody on the relevant date. The Commercial Court has merely implemented the said direc#on and cannot be said to have either enlarged or curtailed the scope thereof. 20. The conten#on of the respondents that the applica#on came to be filed aMer conclusion of the plain#ffs' evidence also deserves acceptance. Although advancement of the trial is not by itself an absolute bar against produc#on of documents, but the stage of proceedings assumes considerable significance in a commercial li#ga#on. The disclosure obliga#ons under Order XI are intended to prevent surprise and ensure certainty in trial. Once the plain#ffs had concluded their evidence and the maEer had reached the stage of defence evidence, greater diligence was expected from the pe##oner - defendant in establishing sufficient cause for non-disclosure. No such cause has been demonstrated. 21. The Commercial Court has adopted a balanced approach. It permiEed produc#on of those documents, which admiEedly came into YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [9] existence aMer filing of the amended wriEen statement, while declining permission regarding those documents, which were already available with the pe##oner. Simultaneously, liberty has been granted to the respondents to raise all objec#ons regarding admissibility, relevancy and mode of proof at the appropriate stage. The discre#on exercised by the Commercial Court is thus neither arbitrary nor perverse. 22. The jurisdic#on of this Court under Ar#cle 227 of the Cons#tu#on is supervisory and not appellate. Unless the order under challenge suffers from patent perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdic#onal error, this Court would not subs#tute its own view merely because another view is also possible. The impugned order reflects due considera#on of the statutory provisions, the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case. No jurisdic#onal error or material irregularity warran#ng interference has been established. 23. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision pe##ons, the same are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applica#on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. 16.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 16.07.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document