High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns orders passed by the Commercial Court in a commercial suit.
Brief Facts:
The commercial suit for recovery of money with pendente lite and future interest was filed by the respondent no.1 in April, 2009 in respect of work orders awarded to the respondent no.1 by the petitioners (defendants no.1 and 2 in the suit) and alleging withholding of certain amounts by the petitioners. Upon filing of written statement by the petitioners and respondent no.2 (defendant no.3 in the suit), issues were framed in the suit on 14th May, 2016. An application under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for discovery of documents from respondent no.2 was filed by the respondent no.1 on 14th October, 2019. On 31st March, 2021 the application filed by the respondent no.1 under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed as not pressed and on the same date, a fresh application was filed seeking production of certain original documents from respondent no.2. The said application was opposed by the petitioners as well as respondent no. 2 by filing a reply.
The impugned order dated 28th September, 2021, while allowing the aforesaid application filed on behalf of respondent no.1, has observed that the documents sought to be brought on record was put to the witness of the petitioners who refused to answer the questions put forth by the respondent no.1 on the ground that the documents were photocopies. Hence, the respondent no. 1 had no option but to produce the originals of the said documents.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.1 closed their evidence without reserving any right to lead rebuttal evidence. It was contended that no liberty was taken by the respondent no.1 even after the petitioners’ evidence, for leading rebuttal evidence. It was contended that if the onus is on the plaintiff to prove a certain document, evidence in rebuttal cannot be lead after the defendant’s evidence is over.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the need to summon the originals of the aforesaid documents arose as the petitioners in their written statement denied the said documents and when the photocopies of the said documents were confronted to the witness of the petitioners in the course of cross examination, the witness did not comment on the documents on the ground that they were photocopies. It was submitted that since the said documents were obtained through RTI, the earlier application filed under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was withdrawn.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides HC observed that the Commercial Court has passed a well-reasoned order and taken into account that the documents, the originals of which are sought to be produced, were documents issued by the petitioners themselves and submitted to the respondent no.2.
The Commercial Court has rightly noted that the need to summon the aforesaid documents by way of an application arose because the witness of the petitioners took objection to the documents during evidence, as the copies produced by the respondent no.1 during evidence were photocopies obtained by way of RTI application.
HC relied upon the case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy where SC while interpreting provisions of Section 151of the CPC, has observed that “the Court has inherent power to act in a manner to secure the ends of justice and the said power does not end when the evidence of the parties is closed.”
HC Held:
After evaluating various submissions made by both the parties HC held that “Commercial Court has exercised its jurisdiction and allowed the aforesaid documents to be exhibited. There are no reasons for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the said discretion exercised by the Commercial Court. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not sitting as a Court of appeal and the jurisdiction can only be exercised in case of patent illegality or manifest error on the face of record. In any event, the scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is even more limited in the case of commercial suits”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Case Title: M/S Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd & Anr. v. Sh. Anil Bhasin & Anr.
Case Details: CM(M) 1162/2021
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments