Balaji Medamalli, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition was filed against the Order dated 18.06.2025, passed in I.A.No.114 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.16 of 2020 on the file of Special Court For Trial And Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, whereby the application filed under Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.114 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.16 of 2020, seeking leave of the Court to receive the documents mentioned in the application in the interest of justice and equity. Along with the said application, as many as 25 documents were filed, which are be received as documents in the above-said suit.

3. Resisting the said application, the respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit contending that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 do not permit the parties to introduce additional documents after the fixation of schedule and Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC is not the correct provision of law, and in fact, the CPC has no application insofar as receiving of documents at a belated stage. It was also contended that the description of the documents as well as the relevancy was also not properly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application. As per the amended CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes, filing of documents at appropriate stage is mandatory and the same cannot be permitted at a later point of time, no judicial discretion is vested in the courts for doing so. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff that the cause shown in the affidavit that documents were misplaced in the office of the petitioners, thereby, they could not file those documents which are essential documents to support the case of the petitioners and subsequently, after the documents were traced out, they were advised to file a petition and there is no willful default or negligence on their part in filing the said documents was refuted by the respondent asserting that there is no reason, much less sufficient cause, has been shown to receive the documents and the petitioners/defendants have slept over for more than five years, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as sought in the said I.A.

4. Considering the submissions of the counsel on either side, learned Special Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that there is an inordinate delay of about five years in filing the application to bring the proposed documents on record and there is no explanation except stating that the same were misplaced in the office. The trial court further observed that liberal interpretation cannot be done in respect of the provision of Commercial Courts Act, particularly, when the delay is about more than five years.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants filed the present revision petition.

6. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the documents were misplaced in the office of the petitioners and that the present application is filed immediately after they were traced out. In fact, in the written statement filed in the above commercial suit (which was subsequently transferred and numbered as C.S.No.2 of 2019 before the Commercial Court at Vijayawada), at Para 13, the right to file additional written statement in the event of new facts coming to light, was reserved by the defendants. It was further contended that all the documents are public documents and defendants being the State, there is no possibility of manipulation or fabrication of documents, as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. The documents are crucial for the purpose of adjudication of the matter and also in the interest of public exchequer as the claim is against the State. It was further submitted that an additional affidavit explaining the relevancy of the documents has been filed. A perusal of the said affidavit would show that the said documents are basically, the agreement with the respondent/plaintiff and communication between the parties during the execution of work under the said agreement. As such, both the plaintiff and defendants are parties to the said documents and they are not new documents. The said documents could not be filed in view of the misplacement of the same in the office of the petitioners/defendants, as such, receiving of the same would not cause any prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly prayed for leave of the Court to receive the said documents.

8. The respondent/plaintiff, filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above documents inter alia contending that the documents are supposed to be filed by the petitioners/defendants at the time of filing of written statement, or counter claim if any, or at the stage of case management hearings in respect of transferred cases, as per the provisions of Section 15(4) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the said provision does not permit the petitioners/defendants to introduce additional documents after fixation of the schedule, particularly, with such inordinate delay from the date of filing of the written statement. It was further contended that the petitioners/ defendants did not file any supportive documents for substantiating the relevancy or importance of the additional documents, and the reasons assigned were vague. It was further argued that such vague and indistinct statements ought not to have been made by the officers holding higher positions, which shows negligence on their part. The further contention of the respondent is that the defendants had invoked incorrect provision of law by filing the application under Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC, instead of invoking Order XI Rules 1(7) and (10) of the CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes, since Order XI Rule 7 relates to striking of interrogatories.

9. It was further case of the respondent/plaintiff that the very object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to ensure expeditious adjudication of disputes in strict adherence to the special procedure prescribed therein, and that it is an imperative on the part of the courts to achieve the object of swift and effective disposal of commercial disputes by the Special Courts and placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B.,( (2021) 13 SCC 71) and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP((2020) 15 SCC 585) and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition.

10. Heard both sides and considered the pleadings and material on record.

11. To answer the contentions in respect of the wrong provisions of law under which the present application seeking leave to receive documents is filed, the same ought to have been filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order XI Rule 1(7) read with Rule (10) of CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes. However, the present application was filed under Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC, which pertains to striking off pleadings and has no application for the present situation. However, it is well settled principle, that non mentioning or wrong mentioning of a correct provision of law does not invalid the proceedings once the court is vested with such power and the courts have to apply appropriate law for considering the application, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments such as;

                   i. M.T.Khan and Others V. Government of Andhra Pradesh((2004) 2 SCC 267), wherein the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

                   16. We are, however, unable to agree with the submission of Mr Hardev Singh to the effect that the appointments of Additional Advocate Generals cannot be traced to the source of the State's power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It is now well-settled principle of law that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not invalidate an order in the event it is found that a power therefor exists.

                   ii. Union of India V. Khazan Singh(1993 Supp (1) SCC 583), wherein the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

                   6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule 25(1)(e) read with Rule 25(1)(f) of the Rules gives very wide powers to the appellate authority. It has the power to remit the case to the disciplinary authority for further inquiry and pass such other orders as it may consider proper or deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The appellate authority did not mention in its order as to under which sub-rule of Rule 25(1) the appeal was being disposed of. The Tribunal while noticing Rule 25(1)(e) of the Rules and conceding that the appellate authority could remand the case to the disciplinary authority for further inquiry under the said sub-rule, grossly erred in setting aside the order on the concession of the learned counsel to the effect that the appellate authority had passed the order under Rule 25(1)(d) of the Rules. It is settled proposition of law that when the exercise of power can be justified under any provision of law then non-mention of the said provision in the order cannot invalidate the same. We are of the view that the appellate authority validly exercised its powers under Rule 25(1)(e) and 25(1)(f) of the Rules. Mr K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Khazan Singh stated that Rule 25(1)(e) would only be attracted if departmental inquiry was held by the disciplinary authority and since in this case no ∼inquiry was held the appellate authority had no power under the said rule to remand the case. We do not agree. The powers under the Rules are very wide enabling the appellate authority to do justice in a given case. No prejudice has been caused to Khazan Singh because the defence set up by him can only be examined in a regular inquiry.

                   iii. State of Karnataka V. Krishnaji Srinivas Kulkarni, ((1994) 2 SCC 558), wherein the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

                   6. As seen, admittedly the respondents as on March 1, 1974 did not have possession of the lands. The company lessee continued to hold the land. By operation of Section 6 though its lease had expired by efflux of time, the lease did not stand terminated. In other words, his possession remains juridical possession under the Act. Therefore, on its being prohibited to remain in possession, the company was enjoined under Section 79-B(2) to furnish declaration and accordingly he did furnish to the Tahsildar, though mistakenly done by quoting Section 66(1). Quotation of a wrong provision does not take away the jurisdiction of the authorities to inquire under Section 79-B(3) of the Act. The Tribunals, therefore, had jurisdiction to inquire into and publish the declaration as enjoined under Section 79-B(3) of the Act. The demised 600 acres land held by the company stood vested in the State free of encumbrances.

12. Supra, it is clear that mere mentioning of wrong provision or non mentioning of provision of law will not invalidate the application if the Court is vested with such power to entertain such an application.

13. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff, that the application filed was under a wrong provision of law cannot be accepted and the same is misconceived. Though the application is mentioned as being filed under Order XI Rule 7 of the CPC, the said application can be treated as the one filed for receiving additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(7) and Rule 1(10) CPC as applicable to the commercial disputes. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff cannot be sustained, as such, the same is held in favour of the petitioners/defendants and against the respondent/plaintiff holding that mere mentioning of a wrong provision will not in any way defeat the purpose of the application filed by the petitioners/ defendants.

14. In regard to the sufficiency of reasons and cause shown for grant of leave to receive the documents filed along with the above said I.A., are concerned, it has to be analysed with reference to the nature of the documents, reason for non filing of the same and also the prejudice to be caused to the respondent/ plaintiff apart from the bona fides of the petitioners. In this regard, this Court has considered the rival contentions of the parties.

15. The application filed by the petitioners/defendants is to receive the documents which were in fact, to be filed, could not be filed, as they were misplaced in the office of the defendants and are now being filed after traced out, as such, there is no willful negligence or intention for non filling of the documents at relevant point of time. However, it was the contention that the documents are not new documents and they are admittedly the agreement between the parties and the subsequent consequential correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit. Thus, at any stretch of imagination, those documents cannot be called as new documents sought to be introduced in the suit as such no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. So far as cause shown is concerned, the only explanation forthcoming is that the said documents are misplaced in the office of petitioners/defendants. It was the contention of the defendants that the said documents are crucial documents and they are very much essential for the purpose of adjudication.

16. As the dispute is in regard to the payment of money by the petitioners/defendants for the work done under the contract agreement, as such, the public money is involved, any adverse orders would adversely affect the public exchequer, as such, the documents need to be taken on file and the same needs to be adjudicated by the Special Court. In a suit for commercial disputes, unless, the said documents covered under Order XI Rule 7(c)(i)(ii)(iii) of CPC as applicable to commercial disputes, defendants shall not be allowed to rely on the said documents that were in their power, possession , control or custody and were not disclosed along with the written statement or counterclaim. Whereas in the instant case, it is not in dispute that they were in defendants’ power, possession, control and custody. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to advance an argument that they were misplaced, as such, they were not under possession of the defendants at that point of time, as such, could not be placed on record along with the written statement. As the same were traced subsequently, they were filed before the court, as such, the application needs to be allowed.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the provisions of Order XI Rules 7 and 10 as applicable to the commercial disputes, contended that the same cannot be permitted, unless the reasons for non-filing of the documents along with the written statement is explained with cogent reasons or else it would defeat the very purpose and object of Commercial Courts Act and the amendments brought in CPC in so far as commercial disputes are concerned. It was further contended that the argument of the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot be accepted in regard to the concept of loss to the public exchequer once the case of the petitioner does not satisfy the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(7) and (10) as applicable to the commercial disputes. In regard to the other submission of misplacement of documents are concerned, the same cannot be accepted as the affidavit is mentioning only bare averment that they were misplaced and there is no averment as to when the said documents are found. Therefore, the argument of misplacement is only an afterthought. Learned counsel placed reliance on Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.,( (2001) 8 SCC 97), wherein the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

                   The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent while placing reliance on the above said judgment contended that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals unless they are in flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy Vs Sreepada Real Estates & Developers Hyderabad and Another(2024 SCC Online AP 4102). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

                   59. In Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a Court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts. The supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. Such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent while placing reliance on the above said judgment, submits that, this Court while considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, held that the High Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a Court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts. The supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported and contended that the learned judge after considering the relevant provision of law as applicable to the commercial disputes under Order XI Rule 1(7) and also the facts of the case, came to conclusion that the application filed for receiving the documents cannot be entertained and dismissed the application.

21. On a close perusal of the pleadings as well as the law and also the rival contentions of the parties, the application filed by the petitioners/ defendants before the Special Court seeking leave to receive the documents shows the reason of misplacement of the said documents in the office of the defendants and the above application was filed immediately after they were traced.

22. The contention of the respondent/ plaintiff in regard to the misplacement of documents and filing of the same after they were traced is not seriously disputed. The only contention was that the defendants were not diligent delay was not explained, reasons to condone the delay of about more than 5 years are not explained for considering the application. In the counter affidavit, the respondent/ plaintiff did not either dispute the relevancy of the documents or the nature of the documents. As stated above all the documents sought to be filed are not the new documents and both plaintiff and defendants are parties to the said documents. A perusal of the affidavit filed before the trial court as well as before this Court would clearly show that document Sl.No.1: is the agreement between the parties herein and document Sl.Nos. 2 to 25 are the correspondence during the currency of the said work, which were addressed to the respondent/ plaintiff. Therefore, the said documents cannot be said t be not relevant documents.

23. In regard to the contention that the same were in power, possession, control or custody of the defendants at the time of filing of written statement as such those documents cannot be taken on record and the defendants cannot be permitted to rely upon is concerned, it was the case of the defendants that they were misplaced and could not be filed along with the written statement would go to show that they were not in the real power, possession, control and custody at that relevant point of time. Though the respondent raised several contentions regarding delay and latches, the factum whether the defendants were really in power, possession, control and custody of the documents or not was not contended.

24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sugandhi (Dead) by legal representatives Vs P.Rajkumar (2020 (10) SCC 706) considered the similar issue under Order 8 Rule 1-A held as under:

                   “6. Rule 1-A of Order 8 CPC provides the procedure for production of documents by the defendant which is as under:

                   “1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.—(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counterclaim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

                   (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

                   (3) A document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant under this Rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

                   (4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents—

                   (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or

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

                   7. Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement. He must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule 1(1) of Order 13 CPC again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.

                   8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straitjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.

                   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. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).

                   10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.”

25. The reason mentioned by the petitioners/ defendants in their affidavit was that the documents were misplaced though there is no mention that the documents were not in their power, possession, control or custody, once it was the contention that the same were misplaced, it can be said that the said documents were not in their power, possession, control or custody at that relevant point of time. Upon tracing of the said documents, the above application for receiving of the said documents in the above application seeking to grant leave was filed. The expression ‘reasonable cause’ to grant leave is of utmost importance and should have been considered, in correct perspective, liberally, to advance substantial justice, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 being procedural in nature as held in Sugandhi ‘s case (Supra 8) by the Hon’ble Apex Court as they are handmade procedures for advancement of substantial justice. The rejection of such an application on technicalities would further render into unwarranted delay which would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the amendments made to the Civil Procedure Code under Order XI Rule 1 as applicable to the commercial disputes.

26. A Coordinate bench of this Court in C-Star Engineers & Contractors Vs IDMC Limited(2025 SCC OnLine AP 51) where one of us (Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) was a party, considered the similar issue placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sugandhi’s case (Supra 8) held as under:

                   “22. Sugandhi (supra) is a case under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC. Though it is not a case under Order 11 Rule 1(5) CPC, applicable to the Commercial Courts Act, but still the law that procedure is the handmade of justice, equally holds good for Order 11, which provides for the procedure and as such is also a procedural law.

                   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 been considered, in correct perspective, liberally, to advance substantial justice, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1 being procedural in nature.”

27. The above rendered judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sugandhi’s case (Supra 8) and a coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of C-Star Engineers & Contractors’s case (Supra 9), it was categorically held that once the documents appears to be relevant though they must have been in power, possession, control and custody of the plaintiff by the date of filing of the suit, it cannot be per se be a ground to reject the documents as the documents have relevance and bearing on the suit. Supra, the specific averment of the petitioners/ defendants is that the documents are essential for the purpose of proving the case of defendants. Which means they are essential for the purpose of adjudication and there is no contra finding or observation by the learned Special Judge while disposing of the I.A.

28. The petitioners’ case is that the documents are very much essential for adjudication of the dispute between the parties but the said averment was not denied by the respondent/ plaintiff and the learned Special Judge also did not record any finding or observation contrary to the said pleading in the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition.

29. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that there is reasonable cause to grant leave to allow the said documents to be taken on file, as such, the order impugned in the above civil revision petition is liable to be set aside.

30. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 18.06.2025, passed in I.A.No.114 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.16 of 2020 on the file of Special Court For Trial And Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada. Consequently, I.A.No.114 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.16 of 2020 on the file of Special Court For Trial And Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.