Bhagwan Singh v. Anmol Bhasin

ORDER XI DISCLOSURE, DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS IN SUITS BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION OF A HIGH COURT OR A COMMERCIAL COURT

¶1Disclosure and discovery of documents. ……

(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."

¶21A perusal of the above quoted provision shows that the Appellant has to establish "reasonable cause" for non-disclosure of documents which were in Appellants power, possession, control or custody and were still non disclosed along with the plaint. However, there would be no requirement of establishment of reasonable cause qua the documents that have been found subsequently.

¶22It is not the case of the Appellant that the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence were not within his possession, control or custody, rather the only reason that has been put forth in the application for not producing the said evidence before the learned Trial Court is that the Appellant was advised by his counsel that there was no necessity to file the same and the Appellant being an illiterate person solely relied upon the legal advice that was rendered. If such a contingency is read into the expression "reasonable cause", the very purpose of the requirement of disclosure of documents at the time of filing of plaint as envisaged in Order XI Rule 1(5) would become meaningless.

¶23Incidentally, the documents sought to be filed as additional evidence at this appellate stage were not only not filed along with the plaint, but no application was moved by the Appellant to bring the same on record in the suit, anytime, before or after the commencement of trial. The Appellant also had an opportunity even at the stage of evidence to confront the Respondent's witness with such documents during his cross examination, but such a course was also not adopted.

¶24In the aforesaid circumstances, the justification given by the Appellant for not filing the additional evidence/document before the learned Trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not pass the muster of "reasonable cause" as contemplated under order XI Rule 1(5).

¶25The present application has since been filed by the Appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, it would be apposite to advert to the said provision as well, which reads thus: "27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.—(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if —

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."

¶26A perusal of the above provision shows that the parties are not entitled as right to the admission of additional evidence in the appellate, save and except, in the circumstances expressly enumerated in Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

¶27In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Supreme Court while analyzing the scope and object of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC observed that the Appellate Court may permit additional evidence only in the event conditions laid down in the Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to admission of such evidence. The matter is clearly within the discretion of the Court and is to be utilized sparingly. The party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. The relevant extract from the decision is reproduced hereinbelow: "36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. (Vide K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 1526], Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008], Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal [(1975) 3 SCC 698 : AIR 1975 SC 479] and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy [(1979) 2 SCC 601 : AIR 1979 SC 553] .)

¶37The appellate court should not ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. (Vide Haji Mohammed Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Ali and Co. [(1978) 2 SCC 493 : AIR 1978 SC 798])

¶38Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. (Vide Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008].)

¶39It is not the business of the appellate court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this Rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. (Vide State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava [AIR 1957 SC 912] and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam [AIR 1969 SC 101] .)

¶40The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a "substantial cause" within the meaning of this Rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal.

¶41The words "for any other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires" in the beginning of the sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence, that this Rule will apply e.g. when evidence has been taken by the lower court so imperfectly that the appellate court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment." (emphasis supplied)

¶28The present is not a case where the Trial Court refused to admit any evidence which ought to have been admitted nor it is the case of the Appellant that the additional evidence sought to be produced was not within the knowledge of the Appellant or could not have been produced before the Trial Court. The reasons articulated by the Appellant that he was not properly advised by his counsel for filing of the documents/evidence, now sought to be produced, does not constitute a "substantial cause" as held by the Apex Court in Ibrahim Uddin (supra).

¶29Further, a reading of the plaint shows that the claim of the Appellant/Plaintiff in the suit is for supply of goods against only six invoices specifically pleaded in the plaint. However, the Appellant now wish to rely on various other invoices and contemporaneous documents related to such invoices to prove the entries in the ledger account, Ex.PW1/C (colly.). Such an attempt, at the appellate stage and in the absence of foundational pleadings, is not permissible in law, all the more when such documents were in the possession of the Appellant even when the suit was filed.

¶30For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the application of the Appellant under Order XLI Rule CPC and, accordingly, CM No.42158/2025 is dismissed. There is also no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court warranting any interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶31The pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JULY 13, 2026/jg

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13th July, 2026 Uploaded on: 16th July, 2026 + RFA(COMM) 383/2025 & CM APPL. 42158/2025 BHAGWAN SINGH .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Sanjay Shisodia, Adv. versus ANMOL BHASIN .....RESPONDENT Through: CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN Vikas Mahajan, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule1 of the Civil Procedure Code [hereinafter, 'CPC'] against the final judgment and decree dated 19th April, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Dwarka in CS (COMM) 13/2024 whereby the suit of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5,23,999/- along with pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum, was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the plaint are that the Appellant/Plaintiff, proprietor of the concern "Vishal Fastener" is engaged in manufacturing and selling of fasteners nut-bolts etc. The Respondent/Defendant, proprietor of "Anmol Enterprises", approached the Appellant and placed the orders for washers [the goods] upon him. Between April, 2022 and March, 2023, Appellant supplied goods to the Respondent and raised the invoices for a total amount of Rs.11,56,721/- as detailed below: S. No. Date of Invoice Invoice No. Amount 1. 23.04.2022 1833 Rs.2,48,956/- 2. 07.06.2022 1902 Rs.2,85,560/- 3. 08.09.2022 2072 Rs.1,63,442/- 4. 28.01.2023 2312 Rs.1,25,000/- 5. 02.02.2023 2328 Rs.1,72,150/- 6. 07.03.2023 2380 Rs.1,61,613/- Total Rs.11,56,721/- 4. It is stated that the Respondent made part payment from time to time and the last amount of Rs.35,631/- was paid by the Respondent on 16.06.2023. The plaint also states that Rs.5,23,999/- is outstanding against the Respondent, which he failed to pay despite repeated requests. Hence, the suit was filed for claiming the said amount with interest. 5. The Respondent filed his written statement pleading, inter alia, that the Appellant supplied the goods at a belated stage, due to which the Respondent could not meet the commitment made by him to his clients, who in turn cancelled the orders. Further the goods supplied by the Appellant against aforesaid three invoice nos. 1833, 1902 and 2074 were of substandard/inferior quality, thus, those goods were rejected by the Respondent's clients. The goods supplied by the Respondent against other three invoice nos. 2312, 2328 and 2380 were defective and higher rates were charged. But, despite that, the Respondent made part payments and advance payments to the Plaintiff. 6. The Respondent also denied the statement of account filed by the Appellant and claimed that he has already made the entire payment against six invoices raised by the Appellant. The Respondent also pleaded in the written statement that he had made the advance payment of Rs.3,94,941/- for the goods to be supplied in future. It is also stated that the Appellant never took back the delivery of defective goods, nor adjusted the amount paid by the Respondent against invoice nos. 2312, 2328 and 2380. It was thus, averred in the written statement that the Respondent is not liable to pay any amount to the Appellant. 7. In the evidence, the Appellant/Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and, inter alia, proved – (i) four original invoice nos. 2380, 2328, 2312 and 2072 as Ex.PW-1/A (colly); (ii) a computer generated e-way bills as Ex.PW-1/B (colly), and; (iii) a computer generated ledger account statement Ex.PW-1/C (colly). 8. The Respondent/Defendant examined himself as DW-1, but no document was either filed or proved by the Respondent. 9. The learned Trial Court in the light of evidence that had come on record, returned a finding that the Respondent has failed to prove that - the Appellant supplied the defective goods; the goods were of inferior quality; the goods supplied by the Appellant were not as per the specification; or that the delivery of goods was delayed.