HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 578 of 2026

Between:

M/s. GGR Housing India Private Limited,

Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Authorized

Signatory Mrs.G.Sunitha and 2 others

.....PETITIONERS

AND

Navaratna Estates, Visakhapatnam

Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.Suresh Kumar

Jain and another

.....RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED : 23.04.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 07.05.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT UPLOADED : 07.05.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may

be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

____________________

BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

2

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 578 of 2026

% 07.05.2026

Between:

M/s. GGR Housing India Private Limited,

Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Authorized

Signatory Mrs.G.Sunitha and 2 others

.....PETITIONERS

AND

Navaratna Estates, Visakhapatnam

Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.Suresh Kumar

Jain and another

.....RESPONDENTS

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri S. V. S. S. Siva Ram

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri N. Subbarao, Senior Advocate

Assisted by Sri V. Dushyanth Reddy

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244

2. 1994 SCC (L&S) 31

3. 1983 SCC OnLine Bom 163

4. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10212

5. 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 852

6. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 872

7. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1251

8. (2005) 8 SCC 760

9. AIR 1964 SC 72

10. (1974) 4 SCC 3

11. (2007) 9 SCC 768

12. (2023) 20 SCC 747

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 578 of 2026

JUDGMENT: (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri S. V. S. S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri

N. Subbarao, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V. Dushyanth Reddy,

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India has been filed by M/s.GGR Housing India Private Limited, (Petitioner

No.1, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956), M/s. GGR Infra

Developers Private Limited, (Petitioner No.2, a Company registered under the

Companies Act, 2013) and GGR Infra Priavate Limited (Petitioner No.3, a

Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013), challenging the Order

dated 04.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.271 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.11 of 2022 (in

short „COS‟) on the file of the learned Court of the Special Judge for Trial and

Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam (in short „the Special Judge‟).

The COS was filed by the petitioners being plaintiffs against the defendants

No.1 & 2, the present respondents. I.A.No.271 of 2025 was filed by the

petitioners under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short

„CPC‟), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (in short „Act 2015‟),

seeking leave to receive the documents as mentioned in the list annexed to the

I.A.

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

4

I. Facts:

3. The petitioners had filed COS for specific performance of an oral

agreement dated 28.09.2015 to direct the 1

st

defendant to execute the sale

deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint-A schedule property and also

to direct the 2

nd

defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in

respect of plaint-B schedule property. They also claimed costs of the suit.

4. In COS, I.A.No.347 of 2024 was filed for amendment of the pleadings

which was allowed and incorporating the proposed amendment, the amended

plaint was filed on 04.08.2025, to which, additional written statement was filed

by the defendants on 25.08.2025.

5. In the prayer clause after amendment reads as under:

―VII. PRAYER: (amended as per orders in IA 347/2024 dt.21-07-2025)

The plaintiffs therefore pray the Honorable Court, in the interest of justice,

be pleased to pass a Decree and Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs‘ and against the

defendants‘

a) For granting specific performance of the oral agreement dt:28-09-2025 with

regard to the plaint schedule-A property by directing the 1

st

defendant to

execute and register a regular sale deed/s in respect of the plaint schedule-A

property in favour of the plaintiffs or its nominees within the time frame fixed

by the Honourable Court failing which the Honourable Court may be pleased

to execute the same in favour of the plaintiffs or its nominees after declaring

the termination notice dated 06-06-2022 issued on behalf of the defendants as

null, void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.

b) For granting specific performance of the oral agreement dt:29-09-2015 with

regard to the plaint schedule-B property by directing the 2

nd

defendant to

execute and register a regular sale deed/s in respect of the plaint schedule-B

property in favour of the plaintiffs or its nominees within the time frame fixed

by the Honourable Court failing which the Honourable Court may be pleased

to execute the same in favour of the plaintiffs or its nominees after declaring

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

5

the termination notice dated 06—6-2022 issued on behalf of the defendants as

null, void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.

c) Or in the alternative if for any reason the Hon‘ble Court comes to conclusion

that specific performance is not possible to be granted as prayed in para (a)

and (b), with respect to the suit schedule ―A‖ and ―B‖ properties, the Hon‘ble

Court be pleased to direct the defendants to refund a sum of

Rs.36,22,05,315.00 (Rupees Thirty-Six Crore Twenty-Two Lakhs Five

Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen only) along with subsequent interest at

24% per annum from the date of filing of suit for suit schedule ―A‖ and ―B‖

property.

d) For grant of such other and further relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court

deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

e) For costs of the suit.‖

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by the amendment

prayer (c) was added.

7. With respect to I.A.No.271 of 2025 seeking leave to receive the list of

documents 133 in number. The petitioners‟ case was that those documents are

certified copies being filed in support of the amended pleadings. The

documents included the Gram Panchayat resolutions, Official Challans

confirming payment of development and conversion charges to the Gram

Panchayat, Modavalasa and to the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region

Development Authority (in short „VMRDA‟) and those documents were obtained

recently. It was also the petitioners‟ case that they developed a layout in the

plaint schedule property and the Google images will help the petitioners in

establishing the case of being in possession and developing the property. It

was further their case that the certified copies of conveyance deed sought to be

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

6

filed which were executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs pursuant

to the oral agreement dated 28.09.2015 would help classifying the various

aspects and the documents sought to be produced will show the payment of

sale consideration and also conveyance of title in respect of the land adjacent

to the plaint schedule property. Those were public documents and no prejudice

would be caused to the defendants in receiving the same by the Court.

8. The 1

st

respondent filed counter in the said I.A.No.271 of 2025, which

was adopted by the 2

nd

respondent. Their case while denying the petitioners‟

case in the I.A. was that the documents sought to be produced did not have

any nexus with the amended plaint pleadings. The documents 1 to 21 sought

to be produced were related to a Non-Agriculture Land Assessment (in short

„NALA‟) conversion charges and they were available to the plaintiffs/petitioners

much prior to institution of the suit. The petitioners had to disclose and file

those documents with the original plaint and could not be permitted to file at a

later stage in view of the strict provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

With respect to the documents No.24 to 133, the respondents‟ case was that

those documents were the sale deeds already executed by the 1

st

defendant in

favour of the 1

st

petitioner and those were also prior to filing of the suit. The

pleadings in the plaint clearly mentioned a specific extent already sold to the

plaintiffs and hence those documents should also have been filed at the time of

institution of the suit itself. The same plea was taken with respect to

Documents No.22 and 23, which were sought to be produced in support of

plaintiffs‟ possession of the plaint schedule property that those were available at

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

7

the time of filing of the suit and the plaintiffs having failed to file could not be

permitted to file the same at a later point of time.

II. Impugned Order Dated 04.02.2026:

9. The learned Special Judge has rejected I.A.No.271 of 2025 on the

grounds, briefly stated, mainly that the documents for which leave was sought

to receive, were much prior to the institution of COS and also available to the

plaintiffs/petitioners. The documents No.1 to 21 were also in the power and

custody of the petitioners, the other documents could have been obtained at

the time of institution of the suit and mere fact that the plaintiffs obtained

registration extracts of sale deeds only recently did not mean that they were

not in the power, possession, control or custody of the petitioners. The learned

Special Judge also observed that the original plaint was amended which was

allowed and the amended plaint filed on 04.08.2025 and still those documents

were not filed within 30 days from the date of filing of the amended plaint, but

were filed along with the application on 18.09.2025 beyond the period of 30

days. So, considering the provisions of the Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI

Rule 1 (5) CPC the application deserved dismissal. The learned Special Judge

also applied the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir

Kumar alias S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B

1

.

III. Submissions of the learned counsels:

(i). For Petitioners:

1

(2021) 13 SCC 71

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

8

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs‟ case

as per the plaint is of an oral agreement for sale dated 28.09.2015 between the

plaintiffs and the defendants on the terms and conditions agreed between them

as in para-III (i) of the plaint. He submitted that in brief the oral agreement

was for sale of Ac.129.125 cents to be sold to the plaintiffs/petitioners for a

total sale consideration of Rs.74,30,79,830.00, paid to the defendants excluding

TDS amount in a phased manner. Out of the agreed extent of land to be sold,

however, sale was made to an extent of Ac.79.89 cents only. He submitted

that after the sale as aforesaid, the balance area of Ac.29.93 cents remains to

be sold to the plaintiffs, and so, out of the sale consideration settled and paid

for the entire land, an amount of Rs.36,22,05,315-00 remained in balance with

defendants, to recover which, the plaintiffs made an alternate prayer in the

suit.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the copies of the

sale deeds to evidence the sale transactions by the defendants in favour of the

plaintiffs were not filed along with the original plaint, for the reason that the

same were not required as the sale deeds for an extent of Ac.79.89 cents out of

the agreed extent of Ac.129.125 cents had already been transferred. So, there

was no dispute on that aspect, and even in the written statement, the transfer

and conveyance for an area of Ac.79.89 cents was admitted.

12. However, in the written statement a plea was taken by the

defendants that between 2015 to 2018 the total extent of land shown by the 1

st

defendant to the plaintiffs is Ac.76.02 cents for a total sale consideration of

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

9

Rs.59,38,92,142/-. In the Financial Year 2018-19 the 1

st

defendant sold an

extent of Ac.3.845 cents to the 1

st

and 2

nd

plaintiffs for a sale consideration of

Rs.4,32,56,250/-. Thus, in total, the 1

st

defendant sold an extent of Rs.79.865

cents to the 1

st

and 2

nd

plaintiffs for a total sale consideration of

Rs.63,71,48,392/- and on the said amount, the plaintiffs paid TDS @ 1% to the

Income Tax Department under Section 194 (1A) of the Income Tax Act. The

defendants denied the plaintiffs claim of sale of Ac.79.89 cents for a sum of

Rs.38,72,46,000/- which was said to be an amount of Rs.63,71,48,392/-,

submitting further that if that was true, as alleged by the 1

st

plaintiff in the

plaint, the plaintiff ought to have paid TDS amount, less than what was actually

paid by the plaintiffs. However, the factum of the Income Tax Returns and

Books of Accounts was deliberately suppressed.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of that

plea taken in the written statement, in order to show the payment of sale

consideration for the area of the land conveyed/transferred to the petitioners,

the petitioners sought filing of the certified copies of the registered sale deeds.

The petitioners‟ case was that towards the sale already taken place of Ac.79.89

cents, the sale consideration of Rs.38,72,46,000/- had already been paid. But,

in view of the dispute raised disputing the payment of the sale consideration, at

the amount as pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint, but submitting that the

amount paid was Rs.63,71,48,392/- which was for the entire land agreed to be

sold. As per the defendants case that amount of Rs.63,71,48,392/-, was for the

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

10

land already sold. So, the documents were considered to be necessary in view

of the defence case and so I.A.No.271 of 2025 was filed.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that to show

the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to some more area and also to

show the development plan carried by the plaintiffs, some of the documents out

of 133 documents sought to be produced were also required to be filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that certain documents out of

133 documents were also required to be filed in view of the amendment in the

plaint which had already been allowed.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial has not

yet commenced. The issues have yet not been framed in COS and

consequently, there was no delay in filing application. The application was filed

within the reasonable period from the date of the amendment in the plaint. He

submitted that the cause shown was a reasonable cause and the learned

Special Judge ought to have granted the leave and ought to have taken those

documents on record.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in M/s.C-Star

Engineers & Contractors (C-180) v. IDMC Limited

2

in support of the

contention that the expression „sufficient cause‟ or the „satisfaction of the Court‟

with respect to the cause is to be considered liberally granting opportunity to

the parties for effective adjudication of COS. Learned counsel for the

petitioners further placed reliance in Bennett Coleman & Co.Ltd. v. ARG

2

2025 (1) ALT 707

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

11

Outlier Media Pvt.Ltd.

3

and contended that the filing of the application to

bring on record the documents which could not be disclosed and filed along

with the plaint was necessitated, in view of the defendants‟ pleadings in the

written statement. He referred to Order XI Rule 1 (1) (c) (ii) CPC and

submitted that in view of the said provision, the application could not be

rejected on the ground it has been rejected.

(ii). For the Respondents:

17. Sri N. Subbarao, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the

respondents, submitted that it was the plaintiffs‟ case as per the plaint

averments that Ac.79.89 cents had been sold for the sale consideration of

Rs.38,72,46,000/-. So, the plaintiffs must have filed the documents, the sale

deeds in support of the said contention. But, after such pleading the

documents were not disclosed in the plaint nor the list of documents was

annexed to the plaint. Consequently, at the belated stage after more than 3

years, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to seek leave of the Court for filing of

the documents. The leave has rightly been rejected as there was no sufficient

ground or reasonable cause. He submitted that in view of sub-rule (5) of Rule

1 of Order XI CPC leave of the Court shall not be granted, unless the plaintiffs

establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents along with the

plaint, which in his submission was not established.

18. Sri N. Subbarao, learned senior Advocate, further submitted that the

documents as has been sought to be filed along with I.A.No.271 of 2025 were

3

2023 SCC OnLine Del 1457

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

12

not original documents, but certified copies of sale deeds. He submitted that

the certified copies of the sale deed are not primary evidence and

consequently, unless the conditions for production of the secondary evidence as

contemplated in Section 65 of the Evidence Act were satisfied, the documents

could not be permitted. He submitted that though that is not a ground in the

impugned order for rejecting the application, but that is the additional

submission to support the impugned order.

19. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the document being

sought to be filed were unconnected to the amendment of the plaint and

consequently, it cannot be said that in view of the amendment made, the

documents were sought to be filed. In his submission all those documents are

of a date prior to the date of institution of the suit but were not disclosed.

Those documents are also not related to the amended part. Alternatively, he

submitted that even if it be taken that some of the documents related to the

amended part, taking the submission of the petitioners‟ counsel for the time

being, still I.A. was filed belatedly and after more than 30 days of filing of the

amended plaint. He submitted that no illegality has been committed by the

learned Special Judge in rejecting the application. The Order is fully

inconsonance with the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 (1) (5) CPC.

20. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance in Sudhir

Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B

4

in support of his contentions.

4

(2021) 13 SCC 71

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

13

21. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the

material on record.

IV. Point for determination:

22. The following point arises for consideration and determination:

“Whether the learned Special Judge committed error of law in

rejecting I.A.No.271 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.11 of 2022, for leave to file

documents under Or XI Rule 1 CPC?”

V. Consideration:

A. Statutory provisions & proceedings and Analysis:

23. Order XI Rule 1 CPC reads as under:

―Disclosure, Discovery and inspection of documents in suits before the

commercial division of a high court or a commercial court:

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 plaintiff‘s

case;

(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs

and relevant only––

(i) for the cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, or

(ii) in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing

of the plaint, or

(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

(2) The list of documents filed with the plaint shall specify whether the

documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are originals,

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

14

office copies or photocopies and the list shall also set out in brief, details of parties

to each document, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of custody of

each document.

(3) The plaint shall contain a declaration on oath from the plaintiff that all

documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining to

the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by him have been disclosed

and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that the plaintiff does not have any

other documents in its power, possession, control or custody.

Explanation.––A declaration on oath under this sub-rule shall be contained in

the Statement of Truth as set out in the Appendix.

(4) In case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional

documents, as part of the above declaration on oath and subject to grant of such

leave by Court, the plaintiff shall file such additional documents in Court, within

thirty days of filing the suit, along with a declaration on oath that the plaintiff has

produced all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to

the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff and that the

plaintiff does not have any other documents, in its power, possession, control or

custody

(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.

(6) The plaint shall set out details of documents, which the plaintiff believes

to be in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant and which the

plaintiff wishes to rely upon and seek leave for production thereof by the said

defendant.

(7) The defendant 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 written statement or with its counterclaim if any, including—

(a) the documents referred to and relied on by the defendant in the written

statement;

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

15

(b) the documents relating to any matter in question in the proceeding in the

power, possession, control or custody of the defendant, irrespective of whether the

same is in support of or adverse to the defendant‘s defence;

(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by the defendants

and relevant only––

(i) for the cross-examination of the plaintiff‘s witnesses,

(ii) in answer to any case set up by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the

plaint, or

(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory

(8) The list of documents filed with the written statement or counterclaim

shall specify whether the documents, in the power, possession, control or custody of

the defendant, are originals, office copies or photocopies and the list shall also set

out in brief, details of parties to each document being produced by the defendant,

mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of custody of each document.

(9) The written statement or counterclaim shall contain a declaration on oath

made by the deponent that all documents in the power, possession, control or

custody of the defendant, save and except for those set out in sub-rule (7) (c) (iii)

pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff

or in the counterclaim, have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the

written statement or counterclaim and that the defendant does not have in its power,

possession, control or custody, any other documents.

(10) Save and except for sub-rule (7) (c) (iii), defendant shall not be allowed

to rely on documents, which were in the defendant‘s power, possession, control or

custody and not disclosed along with the written statement or counterclaim, save

and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the

defendant establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the written

statement or counterclaim.

(11) The written statement or counterclaim shall set out details of documents

in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, which the defendant

wishes to rely upon and which have not been disclosed with the plaint, and call

upon the plaintiff to produce the same.

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

16

(12) Duty to disclose documents, which have come to the notice of a party,

shall continue till disposal of the suit.‖

24. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of Rule 1 (1) shows that the

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 date of filing

the plaint, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the

plaintiff‟s case. However clause (c) provides that nothing in this Rule shall apply

to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant only (i) for the cross-

examination of the defendant‟s witnesses, or (ii) in answer to any case set up

by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or (iii) handed over to a

witness merely to refresh his memory. Under sub-Rule (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.

25. In Sudhir Kumar Alias S.Baliyan (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court

held that the additional documents can be permitted to be brought on record

with the leave of the Court as provided in Order 11 Rule 1(4). Order 11 Rule

1(4) provides that in case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

17

on additional documents subject to grant of such leave by the Court. The

plaintiff shall file additional documents in Court within30 days of filing the suit.

The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that 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. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that on combined reading of Order 11 Rule

1(4) read with Order 11 Rule 1(5) it emerged that (i) in case of urgent filings

the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents; (ii) within thirty

days of filing of the suit; (iii) making out a reasonable cause for non-disclosure

along with plaint.

26. In Sudhir Kumar Alias S.Baliyan (supra) it was further held that

however, the requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non-

disclosure of the documents along with the plaint shall not be applicable if it is

averred and it is a case of the plaintiff that those documents have been found

subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff‟s power, possession, control or

custody at the time the plaint was filed. Order 11 Rule 1(4) and Order 11 Rule

1(5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to

the documents which were in plaintiff‟s power, possession, control or custody

and not disclosed along with plaint. The rigour of establishing the reasonable

cause in non-disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

18

additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered

subsequent to the filing of the plaint.

27. In M/s.C-Star Engineers & Contractors (C-180) (supra) a

Coordinate Bench of this Court held that what follows from Order XI Rule 1(5),

is that the documents, which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control

or custody and were not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended

period, can still be allowed to be relied upon by the leave of the Court. Such

leave shall be granted only upon the reasonable cause being established by the

plaintiffs for non-disclosure of those documents and not filing along with the

plaint. It was further held applying the principles of law as laid in Sudhir

Kumar alias S. Baliyan (supra) that the expression the „reasonable cause‟ to

grant leave, is of utmost importance and should be considered, in correct

perspective, liberally to advance the substantial justice, the provisions of Order

11, Rule 1 being procedural in nature.

28. In M/s. C-Star Engineers & Contractors (C-180) (supra), which

is under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of CPC as applicable to the Commercial Courts Act,

a Co-ordinate Bench held that applying the principle of law as in Sugandhi

(supra) and Sudhir Kumar (supra) that if the document was not in power,

possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, the provisions of Order 11, Rule

1(5) CPC shall not apply. Para Nos.20, 21, 23 & 24 in M/s. C-Star Engineers

& Contractors (C-180) reads as under:

“20. In Sugandhi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the procedure is

the handmade of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed

to come in the way of Court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

19

violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adverse party, Courts must

lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon the procedural

and technical violation. The litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth

which is the foundation of justice and the Court is required to take appropriate

steps to thrash out underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the Court

should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the

documents under sub rule (3).

21. In Sugandhi's (supra), an application was filed assigning cogent reasons for

not producing the documents along with the written statement. That application

was filed by the defendants and it was stated that those documents were missing

and were only traced at a later stage. It could not be disputed that those

documents were necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit, the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that the Courts below ought to have granted leave to produce

those documents.

23. Applying the principle of law as in Sugandhi (supra) and Sudhir Kumar

(supra), to the facts of the present case, we find that the plaintiff had stated that

the documents, now sought to be filed with the leave of the Court, which were

presumed to be missing during the shifting of the petitioner's office, and could

be traced at a later stage. So, at the time of presentation of the plaint, it cannot

be said to be in power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff at that

time. Even if it was not specifically so said, upon which the learned Special

Judge has laid much emphasis to reject the applications, such a plea necessarily

follows from the plea taken about missing of the document while ‗shifting of

office‘. So, if the document was not in power, possession, control or custody of

the plaintiff, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1(5) CPC shall not apply, as they

apply to the documents in power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff,

but not disclosed at the time of the filing of the plaint.

24. Even if it be taken that, as the plaintiff did not mention that those

documents were not in his power, possession, control or custody and so, they

were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody, which appears to

be the reasoning and the view taken by the learned Special Judge, expression

the ‗reasonable cause‘ to grant leave, is of utmost importance and should have

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

20

been considered, in correct perspective, liberally, to advance substantial justice,

the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 being procedural in nature.‖

29. So far as the pleadings of the plaintiffs with respect to the extent of

the land transferred under various sale deeds from time to time i.e., Ac.79.89

cents is concerned, there is no dispute in the pleadings of the written

statement. Transfer to an extent of Ac.79.89 cents is admitted. According to

the plaintiffs/petitioners out of the total area to be sold, only Ac.79.89 cents

was sold for which the plaintiffs paid Rs.38,72,46,000.00 and the balance area

of land was required to be transferred under the oral agreement dated

28.09.2015, for which the balance of the sale consideration was already with

the defendants. Whereas the case of the defendants was that for the land

already transferred an amount of Rs.63,71,48,392/- had been paid. The plea

taken in substance was that the total sale consideration as paid by the plaintiffs

pursuant to the oral agreement of sale was for the area of Ac.79.89 cents the

land which had already been transferred. So, the further case was that in fact

nothing remained to be transferred under the said oral agreement of sale and

the total sale consideration paid was for the area already transferred is i.e.,

Ac.79.89 cents.

30. List of documents as shown in the tabular format of the application,

which are all of a date prior to the institution of the suit, these include certified

copy of various sale deeds; CRMS challans issued by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh, Resolution of the Gram Panchayats, Proceedings of Metropolitan

Commissioner; the Receipts of payments of land conversion charges, Photos

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

21

taken from GPS map camera showing development of lay out at different

locations etc., and some are referable to the amendment made in the plaint in

2025.

31. The case of the defendants and the arguments advanced is that

those documents were in power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiffs;

or in any case they were available in public domain and being of the date prior

to the institution of the suit could have been obtained disclosed and filed along

with the plaint.

32. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondents is

that the documents sought to be filed are the certified copies of the sale deeds

and such other documents but not the original and the plaintiff could have

obtained those documents prior to filing of the suit as those documents are of a

date prior to the suit and public document, so those documents could be

obtained from the respective authorities or the department such as the

Registration; the Gram Panchayat; and Municipal Corporation and could be

filed.

33. Learned Special Judge has recorded that “in the present case, all the

documents sought to be produced by petitioners could have been obtained by

them at the time of institution of suit itself. Mere fact that they obtained

registration extracts of sale deeds only recently does not mean that they were

not in the power, possession, control or custody of petitioners. The petitioners

could have obtained the same with reasonable efforts. The documents No.1 to

21 were also in the power and custody of petitioners.” So, the Court has taken

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

22

the view that because the petitioners could have obtained those documents

with reasonable efforts so the certified copy of the sale deeds were in the

power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiffs.

34. So, the question is “whether the documents which could be obtained,

being public document and filed with the plaint”, can be said to be in the

power, possession, custody or control of the plaintiff‟s, unless obtained actually.

Those documents even if could be obtained, whether „to obtain‟ is something

different from being in power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff or

the same thing as covered under those expressions, so as to attract Order 11

Rule 1(1) & (5) CPC. We are of the view that those documents which could be

obtained and then filed, cannot be said to be in power, possession, custody and

control of the plaintiffs. A finding to the contrary, recorded by the learned

Special judge, simply because those documents related to a date prior to the

institution of a suit and could be obtained cannot be sustained. In our view the

date of the documents, even if prior to the institution of a suit, would not

automatically make those documents in power, possession and control of the

plaintiffs at the time of filing the suit. What is relevant is, if those documents

sought to be filed were in possession, power, control and custody of the

plaintiffs or not and not the mere date of those documents being prior to the

institution of the suit or which could have been obtained for filing with the

plaint. The expression power, possession, control and custody means actual

possession, power, control and custody and it cannot be deemed or

constructive possession, nor that by making reasonable effort the document

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

23

could be taken into power, possession, control and custody. In M/s. C-Star

Engineers & Contractors (C-180) (supra), the documents which were

misplaced were held not to be in power, possession, control and custody. In the

present case there is no finding of the documents being in power, possession,

control and custody of the petitioner but the finding is that with reasonable

effort those documents could have been obtained. On such a finding Rule 1(1)

shall not be attracted and the permission to take those documents on record

could not be denied.

35. A perusal of the pleadings in the suit would show that the aforesaid

documents sought to be filed are not contrary to the pleadings of the plaint. It

is also not the case of the defendants that those documents are contrary to the

pleadings. In our considered view the aforesaid documents cannot be said to

be not relevant for adjudication of the controversy in the COS, inter alia, to

determine the total sale consideration paid, for the transferred land of Ac.79.89,

and so to adjudicate the entire area, claimed to be agreed to be sold and also

what was the total amount paid under those sale deeds, for an area of

Ac.79.89.

B. Filing of documents in view of the stand taken in written statement

36. The necessity of getting the certified copy and filing the same, as per

the case of the plaintiffs arose in view of the stand taken by the defendants in

the written statement. They then obtained those documents and sought

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

24

permission to file, along with the application. Such submission appears to have

force on perusal of the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement.

37. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 1 (1),

clause (c) (ii) which speaks that „this Rule‟ shall not apply in the cases covered

under clause (c) (i) to (iii), excludes the applicability of sub-rule (1) only. He

submitted that even if it be taken that clause (c) (ii) was attracted in the

present case, even then in view of sub-Rule (5) the application could not be

allowed as those documents were in power, possession, control or custody of

the plaintiffs and there was no reasonable cause for filing of those documents

belatedly and also for not disclosing in the plaint. So, for non-disclosure, for no

reasonable cause the application could not be allowed. Learned senior counsel

submitted that sub-Rule (5) is independent of sub-Rule (1) and clause (c) (ii)

excludes the applicability of sub-rule (1) only, even in those cases in which

clause (c) (ii) is attracted. He submitted that clause (c) says „this rule‟, so what

is excluded is sub-rule (1) and not the entire rule 1 nor sub-rule (5).

38. The aforesaid submission does not appeal us and deserves rejection.

39. Clause (c) clearly speaks of Rule 1. Rule 1 contains 12 sub-rules. It

is not correct that sub-rule (5) is outside Rule 1. It is a sub-rule of Rule 1.

What has been excluded is „this rule‟. That is Rule 1. So, we are of the view

that all the sub-rules in Rule 1 stands excluded in case of applicability of clause

(c) (i) to (iii). A clear expression „this rule‟ has been used in clause (c). We

cannot read „rule‟ as sub-rule (1) only of rule 1. There is clear distinction

between rule and sub-rule. Sub-rule is part of the Rule. So, exclusion or non-

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

25

applicability of rule 1, is for rule 1 as a whole and not for any particular sub-rule

only, but for all the sub-rules as a whole.

40. Even a reading of sub-rule (5) shows that it uses the same

expressions as have been used in sub-rule (1) i.e. power, possession, control or

custody. So, even if for the time being the argument of the learned senior

counsel for the respondents be accepted that, clause (c) excludes the

applicability only of sub-rule (1), then also, sub-rule (5) which refers to sub-rule

(1) cannot be applied to a case attracting clause (c) (i) to (iii). In our view,

sub-rule (5) is in the nature of an exception of sub-rule (1), as it permits with

the leave of the Court on establishing sufficient cause for not disclosure with

the plaint. So, if the disclosure was not required in cases of clause (c) (i) to

(iii), in the plaint on the submission of sub-rule (1) having been excluded, then

also, there would be no question of pleading any sufficient cause for such non-

disclosure under sub-rule (5). Even if the applicability of only sub-rule (1) is

taken as excluded, taking the submission of the learned senior counsel, then

also automatically sub-rule (5) shall also stand excluded.

41. So, we are of the view that what is excluded is, Rule 1 in its entirety

i.e., all the sub-rules, in case clause (c) is attracted. Any other view would be

re-writing and legislating sub-rule (c) (i) to (iii) which generally and ordinarily is

not the function of the Court.

42. In Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (supra), the Delhi High Court held

that the document as were sought to be filed were covered within the ambit of

sub-rule (1) (c) (ii) of Rule (1) of Order XI CPC in terms of which the plaintiff

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

26

would be entitled to file the documents in response to a case set up by the

defendants after filing of the plaint. The Delhi High Court held that even if

those documents were available in public domain at the time of filing of the suit

and should have been filed along with the plaint, the need for filing of those

documents arose only on account of the stand taken by the defendants in the

written statement. Paragraph-7 of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (supra)

reads as under:

―7. A perusal of the additional documents sought to be placed on record

by the plaintiff would show that the said documents are the examination reports

of the Registry and the responses thereto by the defendants. All the aforesaid

documents pertain to the defendants. Attention of the Court has been drawn by

the counsel for the plaintiff to paragraph 18 of the written statement filed by the

defendant no. 2, where a specific stand has been taken by the defendants that

the trademark/taglines, which are the subject matter of the present suit are

descriptive in nature. The aforesaid contention has been rebutted by the plaintiff

in its replication. In order to meet the aforesaid contention of the defendants, the

plaintiff seeks to place on record the aforesaid documents to show that in their

replies to the examination reports, the defendants have claimed the trademark to

be distinctive. The aforesaid documents are covered within the ambit of

sub-rule (1)(c)(ii) of Rule (1) of Order XI of the CPC in terms of which the

plaintiff would be entitled to file the documents in response to a case set up

by the defendants after filing of the plaint. Therefore, there is no merit in the

submission of the defendants that the aforesaid documents were available in

public domain and could have been filed along with the plaint. Even if the said

documents were available in public domain at the time of filing of the suit,

the need for filing the aforesaid documents arose only on account of the

stand taken by the defendants in the written statement.‖

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

27

43. So, even if it be taken that the documents were in possession,

power, control and custody of the plaintiffs Clause (c) (ii) is attracted and the

applicability of Rule 1, stands excluded. The application could not be rejected

on the ground of rejection based on sub-rule (1) & (5) of the Order XI Rule 1

CPC.

C. Procedural law:

44. In Bunge India Pvt. Ltd., v. Sree Mahalakshmi Oil Mills

5

, a co-

ordinate Bench held that the settled law is that a procedure is handmaid of

justice and the object of prescribing procedure is to advance justice referring

to the judgments of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sambhaji v. Gangabai {(2008) 17

SCC 117}, Sugandhi v. P.Rajkumar {(2020) 10 SCC 706} and Abraham

Patani v. State of Maharashtra {(2023) 11 SCC 79}. It was held as under:

“37. It is settled in law that the procedure is handmaid of justice. The object of

prescribing procedure is to advance justice. In Sambhajl v. Gangabal

7

the

Supreme Court held that all the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice.

The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or

stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to

advance justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied

the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless

compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of

CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner

which would leave the Court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the

ends of justice.

38. Paragraph Nos. (10) to (14) of Sambhaji (supra) read as under:

“10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language

employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but

5

2026 SCC OnLine AP 808

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

28

the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the

cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied

the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless

compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of

CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner

which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the

ends of justice.

11. The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge's conscience

and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.

12. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower

substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure

should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration

of vesting a residuary power in the Judges to act ex debito justitiae where the

tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. Justice is the goal of

jurisprudence, processual, as much as substantive. …

13. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the

right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the

court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of

procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the

altered mode. … A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as

mandatory; the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice.

Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be

followed. …

14. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an

aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress,

a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.”

39. In Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar

8

the Supreme Court reiterated that the

procedure is a handmade of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not

be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. If

the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary

party, Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying

upon procedural and technical violation.

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

29

40. In Abraham Patani v. State of Maharashtra

9

the Supreme Court held that

when dealing with matters of procedure the old adage of procedural laws being

the handmaid of justice must be kept in mind, and that the procedural rules

must not be allowed to defeat or hamper the pursuit of justice.

41. Paragraphs-65 to 69 of Abraham Patani (supra) read as under:

―65. Adverting to the first submission, we acknowledge the unambiguous

language of Section 91 which contemplates an application being submitted by

the Commissioner, Respondent 3. However, when dealing with such matters of

procedure the old adage of procedural laws being the handmaid of justice must

be kept in mind. As has been exhaustively and extensively reiterated by this

Court in the past, procedural rules must not be allowed to defeat the basic

purpose of a statute or hamper the pursuit of justice unless violation of the

procedure would itself amount to grave injustice.

66. In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal [Sangram Singh v. Election

Tribunal, (1955) 1 SCC 323 : (1955) 2 SCR 1 : AIR 1955 SC 425] this Court in

the context of procedural rules held: (AIR p. 429, para 16)

“16. … It is “procedure”, something designed to facilitate justice and further

its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing

designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves

no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded

against (provided always that justice is “done” to both sides) lest the very

means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it.”

(emphasis supplied)

67. Similarly, in Ghanshyam Dass v. Union of India [Ghanshyam Dass v. Union

of India, (1984) 3 SCC 46] the ethos behind “adjective law” was elaborated

upon while dealing with issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Civil

Procedure Code: (SCC p. 54, para 12)

“12. In the ultimate analysis, the question as to whether a notice under Section

80 of the Code is valid or not is a question of judicial construction. The Privy

Council and this Court have applied the rule of strict compliance in dealing

with the question of identity of the person who issues the notice with the person

who brings the suit. This Court has however adopted the rule of substantial

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

30

compliance in dealing with the requirement that there must be identity between

the cause of action and the reliefs claimed in the notice as well as in the plaint.

As already stated, the Court has held that notice under this section should be

held to be sufficient if it substantially fulfils its object of informing the parties

concerned of the nature of the suit to be filed. On this principle, it has been held

that though the terms of the section have to be strictly complied with, that does

not mean that the notice should be scrutinised in a pedantic manner divorced

from common sense. The point to be considered is whether the notice gives

sufficient information as to the nature of the claim such as would the recipient

to avert the litigation.”

(emphasis supplied)

68. In the same vein, Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar [Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar,

(2020) 10 SCC 706 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 116] promoted an approach that

sought to achieve substantial justice when confronted with breaches of

procedural law, especially when the other party did not suffer any significant

prejudice. This Court opined: (SCC pp. 708-709, para 12)

“9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and

technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while

doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause

prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial

justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should

not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is

the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to

thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.”

(emphasis supplied)

69. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya

[State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 5 : (1961) 2 SCR

679 : AIR 1961 SC 751], while laying down the test for determining if the

legislature intended for a provision to be Directory or mandatory in nature,

held as follows: (AIR p. 765, para 29)

“29. … For ascertaining the real intention of the legislature, the Court may

consider, inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

31

consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other,

the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the

provisions in question is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute

provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions, the fact

that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty,

the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all, whether

the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.”

(emphasis supplied)”

42. The provision of Order VIII as amended for Commercial Courts still retain

the character of the procedural provisions. We are not saying that the time limit

is not to be adhered nor that the object with which the Act has been brought into

force to decide expeditiously the commercial disputes should be ignored, or that

it should be construed to defeat the object; but we say that, the nature of the

amended CPC applicable to the Commercial Courts Act is still a procedural

law, which cannot be allowed to override the substantive rights even in its

application to the Commercial Courts.‖

D. Other submissions:

45. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the

certified copy of the sale deeds were not the primary evidence and could not be

allowed unless the proof of loss of the primary evidence was established in view

of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no dispute on the legal

provisions of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act as also the proposition of law

with respect to the admissibility of the secondary evidence under the

circumstances mentioned therein and unless those circumstances are

established, the secondary evidence would not be permissible. But, that aspect

of the matter is open for the respondent to be raised before the learned Special

Judge, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. If and when such

RNT, J & BM, J

CRP No.578 of 2026

32

objections are raised by the respondents, we do not see any reason as to why

such objections will not be considered by the learned Special Judge at the

appropriate stage and in accordance with law.

E. Conclusion:

46. We are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court

committed error in rejecting the application for grant of leave to file the

documents annexed to I.A.No.271 of 2025. The order dated 04.02.2026 is liable

to be set aside and the documents deserves be taken on record subject to its

admissibility to be considered during trial.

VI. Result:

47. In consideration of as above, in the result CRP is allowed. The

impugned order is set aside with direction to the learned Special Judge to take

the documents on record, with the further directions 8 observations made in

this judgment.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

consequence.

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

______________________

BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J

Date: .05.2026

Dsr/Ag

Note:

LR copy to be marked

B/o

Dsr