Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Late-Filed Documents in Commercial Suit; No ‘Reasonable Cause’ Shown Under Order XI CPC

Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Late-Filed Documents in Commercial Suit; No ‘Reasonable Cause’ Shown Under Order XI CPC

Introduction

The Delhi High Court in Zimalaya Drugs Pvt. Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd., (2026) ibclaw.in 281 HC, dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging a trial court’s refusal to permit filing of additional documents at a belated stage in a commercial suit. The Court reaffirmed the strict procedural discipline mandated under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and held that negligence or oversight does not constitute “reasonable cause” for delayed production of documents.

Factual Background

The dispute arose in a pending commercial suit (CS(COMM) 1868/2019) where Zimalaya Drugs Pvt. Ltd., the defendant, sought permission under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to place additional documents on record. The documents included bills, receipts, and advertisements, which the defendant claimed were relevant for proper adjudication. The defendant contended that these documents could not be filed earlier because they were lying with its previous counsel and were not supplied in time.

Procedural Background

The trial court dismissed the defendant’s application by order dated 20 May 2025, noting that the application was filed after framing of issues and at a stage when the matter was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. The court observed that under the amended regime applicable to commercial suits, particularly Order XI of the CPC as introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, defendants are required to disclose all documents in their power, possession, control, or custody along with the written statement, accompanied by a declaration on oath. The trial court found that the defendant had neither shown reasonable cause for non-disclosure nor complied with the Statement of Truth and affidavit requirements. Aggrieved, the defendant invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner had shown “reasonable cause” under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC to justify filing additional documents after framing of issues?

2. Whether the trial court’s refusal to permit late filing of documents warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner argued that the trial court’s order was based on conjectures and that the additional documents were essential for effective adjudication. It was contended that the documents were not filed earlier due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, as they were retained by previous counsel. The petitioner further submitted that the trial court ought to have exercised discretion liberally in the interest of justice.

The respondent opposed the petition, submitting that the application was a tactic to delay the trial. It emphasized that the application was moved after issues were framed and when the matter was listed for plaintiff’s evidence. The respondent relied upon precedents including Sudhir Kumar v. Vijay Kumar G.V. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 734), Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. v. VLCC Personal Care Ltd. (Delhi High Court), and Bela Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. Anuj Textiles, to argue that negligence cannot constitute reasonable cause. It was further submitted that the defendant had failed to file the mandatory Statement of Truth and affidavit of admission-denial as required under the Commercial Courts Act framework.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court examined the scope of Order XI as amended by the Commercial Courts Act and reiterated that commercial litigation demands strict adherence to procedural timelines and disclosure obligations. The Court noted that Order XI Rule 1(7) mandates filing of all documents in power and control along with the written statement, and Rule 1(10) permits late filing only upon demonstration of reasonable cause. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the documents were admittedly within the defendant’s possession and that no plausible explanation was furnished for their earlier non-production.

The bench of Mr. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta emphasized that “reasonable cause” must refer to circumstances beyond the control of the party and cannot extend to negligence or lack of diligence. The plea that documents were lying with previous counsel was found insufficient. The Court also observed that the defendant had not complied with mandatory procedural requirements such as filing the Statement of Truth and affidavit of admission-denial. Given that the matter had already progressed to the evidence stage, permitting additional documents would defeat the purpose of expeditious disposal envisaged under the Commercial Courts Act.

The High Court concluded that the trial court’s order was reasoned, legally sound, and consistent with binding precedents. No jurisdictional error or perversity was found warranting interference under Article 227.

Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s refusal to allow filing of additional documents at a belated stage. All pending applications were also disposed of.

In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Ms. Arti Anupriya, Mr. Kartikey, Mr. Paras Juneja, Ms. Kritika Yadav and Mr. Naman Verma, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Ms. Akansha Singh, Ms. Saloni Raghuvanshi and Mr. Saransh Saini, Advocates.