Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Hyderabad dismissing the Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.213 of 2026 in COS.No.160 of 2017). The I.A was filed by the petitioner for bringing four additional documents on record.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1, the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the Suit (COS.No.160 of 2017) before the Commercial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their position in the Suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the Suit for cancellation of a Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 18.03.2010 and for a direction on the defendants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the Suit, the defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.213 of 2026 on 17.03.2026 seeking to bring four documents on record. The nature of the individual documents will be discussed in the later part of this order.

4. Initially, the defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.213 of 2016 under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). The advocate on record for the defendant No.1 changed the filing-provision to Order XI Rule 10 read with section 151 of the CPC. The alteration, made by hand, is part of the record.

5. By the impugned order, the Commercial Court dismissed the defendant No.1’s IA, inter alia, on the ground that the IA was filed at a belated stage of the proceedings. The Commercial Court also found that the Written Statement and the Additional Written Statement filed by the defendant No.1 did not contain any reference to the four documents which were sought to be brought on record by way of the IA. The Commercial Court further noted that the defendant No.1 had failed to file photocopies of the four documents at an earlier stage.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the Commercial Court failed to appreciate that the defendant No.1’s case would be governed by section 15 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘the CCA’) which provides for transfer of pending cases relating to a Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value pending in any civil Court to a Commercial Court (section 15(2)). Senior Counsel submits that the delay in filing the IA was by reason of the CCA coming into effect on and from 2017. Senior Counsel further submits that impleadment of the defendant No.4 at a later stage of the suit further contributed to the delay in filing of the I.A. Senior Counsel submits that the Court should have received the four documents under the old regime of Order VIII Rule 1A (3), as it stood prior to the enactment of the CCA. Senior Counsel argues that a defendant can be permitted to produce a document (which was not produced in the Court by the defendant as stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1A (1)) by obtaining leave of the Court under Order VIII Rule 1A (3).

7. In essence, Senior Counsel submits that the transformed regime of the CCA would not apply to the facts of the present case. It is also submitted that the four documents were misplaced in the counsel’s office and were only traced in 2026.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff places the relevant dates with regard to the hearing of the Suit. Counsel points to the absence of reasonable cause in the affidavit filed by the defendant No.1 as required under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC, as amended by the CCA. Counsel submits that the defendant No.1 failed to explain the delay in filing the IA for bringing the four documents on record. Counsel further submits that the delay on the part of the defendant No.1 in filing the IA did not have any nexus with the impleadment of the defendant No.4 to the Suit.

9. The point which we have been called upon to decide is whether the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the defendant No.1’s IA to receive the four additional documents. In other words, whether the defendant No.1 satisfied the requirement of establishing reasonable cause as required under Order XI Rule 1(7) – (10) of the CPC, as amended by the CCA.

10. The relevant dates and events, as reflected in the Affidavit filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1, are as follows:

               2012 - The plaintiff filed the Suit before the Civil Court and the same was numbered as OS.No.241 of 2012.

               29.08.2012 - The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their Written Statement.

               2017 - The Suit was transferred to the Commercial Court and was renumbered as C.O.S.No.160 of 2017.

               11.06.2018 - The defendant No.4 was impleaded to the Suit.

               27.12.2018 - The defendant No.4 filed written Statement. The defendant No.1 filed Additional Written Statement.

               10.04.2019 - The issues were framed in the Suit.

               10.11.2022 - Affidavit in lieu of chief examination was filed by PW.1.

               25.07.2024 - Cross-examination of PW.1 before the Advocate Commissioner.

               17.03.2026 - The defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.213 of 2026 for receiving four additional documents.

11. From the above, it is clear that the defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.213 of 2026 fourteen years after filing his first Written Statement (in 2012). Significantly, the IA was filed only after the plaintiff’s cross-examination in July, 2024 and that too with a gap of almost two years.

12. Before we proceed further, the position of law with regard to receiving/bringing of additional documents on record in a Commercial Suit should be clarified.

13. Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, a later insertion w.e.f. 01.07.2002, imposes a duty on the defendant to produce all documents upon which he/she claims relief or intends to rely on in support of his/her defence. Order VIII Rule 1A (1) provides that where the defendant bases his/her defence on a document or relies upon any document in his/her possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, the defendant shall enter the documents in a list and produce the same in the Court when the Written Statement is presented by him/her and also deliver the document and a copy thereof to be filed with the Written Statement.

14. Order VIII Rule 1A(2) provides for instances where the document is not in possession or power of the defendant. In such cases, the defendant shall, whenever possible, state in whose possession or power such document is.

15. Order VIII Rule 1A(3), again a later insertion w.e.f. 01.07.2002, requires the defendant to obtain the leave of the Court for receiving a document in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the time of hearing of the suit where the defendant seeks to produce a document which was not so produced, as stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1A (1) of the CPC. Hence, Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC governs the law relating to the production of documents by a defendant in a suit.

16. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 changed the legal landscape with regard to the production of documents in respect of Commercial Suits before a Commercial Division of a High Court or a Commercial Court.

17. Under the transformed regime of Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, the law became more detailed and stringent, including with regard to the procedural formalities which were to be followed by the plaintiff and the defendant in cases where belated documents were sought to be brought on record i.e., after filing of the plaint or written statement.

18. Section 16(1) of the CCA declares that the provisions of the CPC shall stand amended in the manner specified in the Schedule to the CCA in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value. Section 16(2) stipulates that the Commercial Division of a High Court and the Commercial Court in the District shall follow the provisions of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, in the trial of suits relating to commercial disputes of a specified value.

19. Section 15(2) of the CCA provides that all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, pending in any civil Court in any District where a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Court. Section 15(2) corresponds to section 15(1) which deals with the transfer of pending suits and applications to a Commercial Division of a High Court. The CCA was notified on 01.01.2016. Most of the Commercial Divisions in the High Courts and the Commercial Courts in the Districts came to be constituted in 2017. The procedural rigour of the CCA hence became operational to Commercial Suits of a Specified Value from 2017 onwards.

20. Once the Suit migrated to the regime under the CCA, the petitioner/defendant No.1 came within the procedural discipline in Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the CCA.

21. The altered statutory landscape for bringing documents on record in a Commercial Suit falls under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, – ‘Disclosure and discovery of documents’.

22. Order XI Rule 1(7) of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, casts a statutory mandate on a defendant to 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 counter-claim.

23. Order XI Rule 1(8) requires the list of documents filed with the written statement or counter-claim to specify whether the documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant, are originals, office copies or photocopies and also to set out in brief, the details of the parties to each document being produced by the defendant, the mode of execution, issuance or receipt and the line of custody of each document.

24. Order XI Rule 1(9) requires the written statement or counter-claim to contain a declaration on oath by the deponent affirming that all documents in the power, possession, control, or custody of the defendant have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed, and a further declaration that no other documents remain in his/her power, possession, control, or custody. Sub-rule (9), however, carves out an exception for documents specified in sub-rule (7)(c) of Order XI Rule 1: documents produced by the defendant 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; and (iii) handed over to a witness solely to refresh his memory.

25. Order XI Rule 1(10) prohibits the defendant from relying on documents which, while in the defendant’s power, possession, control or custody, were not disclosed along with the written statement or counter-claim except for documents produced under Order XI Rule 1(7)(c)(iii) i.e., a document handed over to a witness merely to refresh his/her memory. Sub-rule (10) provides for only one window to the defendant for bringing further documents on record which is limited to the defendant obtaining leave from the Court. The Court shall however grant such leave only upon the defendant establishing ‘reasonable cause’ for non-disclosure of the documents along with the written statement or counter-claim.

26. The law with regard to production of documents by a defendant under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the CPC before the amendment also required the defendant to obtain leave of the Court for receiving the document in evidence on his/her behalf during the hearing of the suit. However, the amendment to Order XI Rule 1(10) introduced the requirement of ‘reasonable cause’ for not disclosing a document along with the written statement or counter-claim. Apart from this, Order XI Rule 1(7) – (10) prescribes several stipulations preceding the requirement on the defendant obtaining leave of the Court for producing a document which was not disclosed with the written statement/counter-claim.

27. Although, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 argues that the petitioner’s I.A. was filed under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the CPC, we have already stated that the provisions under which the I.A was filed, were later altered to Order XI Rule 1(10) read with section 151 of the CPC. The alterations appear to have been made by hand by the advocate on record. The petitioner’s I.A. was filed on 17.03.2026. Therefore, the petitioner/defendant No.1 would be governed by Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC as amended by the CCA.

28. The affidavit filed by the defendant No.1, along with the I.A, must be assessed against the ‘reasonable cause’ requirement mandated under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, which the defendant must establish for non-disclosure of the documents along with the Written Statement. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 is the only paragraph which states the reason for non-disclosure of the four documents which the defendant No.1 sought to bring on record. The paragraph is reproduced below:

               ‘4. I submit that the above documents were furnished to my counsel long before. The documents were misplaced in the office of my counsel and they are traced recently. Non-production of the aforesaid documents earlier was neither intentional nor willful but for the above reason only. The documents are essential for the proper and just adjudication of the case and to meet ends of justice. If the documents are not received we would suffer irreparable loss and injustice.’

29. Hence, the only reason stated is that the documents were misplaced and were subsequently found without any mention of the date on which the four documents were traced. Absence of particulars in this regard is significant since the Suit was filed in 2012, transferred to the Commercial Court in 2017 and the defendant No.1 filed the I.A. for producing the four documents in 2026 i.e., fourteen years after filing the first Written Statement in 2012 and nine years after filing the Additional Written Statement.

30. There is also a complete absence of any particulars of each of the four documents referred to, for treating them individually. The defendant No.1 failed to mention any cause, let alone reasonable cause, as to why each of these documents was sought to be brought on record, particularly, after fourteen years had elapsed from the filing of the Written Statement.

31. Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, puts primacy on establishing reasonable cause ‘for nondisclosure of documents along with the written statement or counter-claim’. Hence, all that the defendant No.1 was required to do was to state with sufficient clarity and particulars the cause for not bringing each of the four documents on record on 29.08.2012 i.e., at the time of filing of the Written Statement. The defendant No.1 admittedly failed to do this. Paragraph 4 is the only paragraph which sets out the basis on which reasonable cause is claimed. As stated above, the fact that the four documents were misplaced in the office of the defendant No.1’s counsel is not supported by any corroborative particulars. The aforesaid ground in any event appears to be suspect since the defendant No.1 was represented by the same counsel from 2012 to 2026. It is difficult to accept that misplacement of these four documents remained undiscovered for fourteen years.

32. The defendant No.1/petitioner’s argument that the four documents were required to be received by the Court on account of the impleadment of the defendant No.4 is equally specious. The defendant No.4 filed his Written Statement on 27.12.2018. The defendant No.1 however filed the I.A. eight years later in 2026. Moreover, none of the four documents appears to have any nexus to the impeadment or the Written Statement filed by the defendant No.4.

33. The only conclusion that arises from the above paragraphs is that the defendant No.1 sought to improve its case after the plaintiff’s cross examination in July, 2024. The defendant No.1 waited for two years to file the I.A. We thus hold that the petitioner/defendant No.1 failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of establishing reasonable cause for seeking to bring the four additional documents on record.

34. ITC Limited v. J.P Morgan Mutual Fund India Pvt. Ltd. (2020 SCC OnLine Cal 972 ) does not assist the case of the defendant No.1 since the said decision was rendered on the un-amended Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC. The facts in that case were entirely different; the defendants therein had filed their Written Statement in 2016 and an affidavit of documents in 2017 before the Suit was converted to Commercial Suit. Hence, Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, was not applicable in that case.

35. In the impugned order in the present case, the Commercial Court found that the defendant No.1 would have to satisfy the test of reasonable cause under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC as amended by the CCA. The Commercial Court relied on the sequence of dates including the initial institution of the Suit in 2012 and the Written Statement of the defendant No.1 and 2 having been filed on 29.08.2012 and the defendant No.1 having filed its Additional Written Statement on 27.12.2018. The Commercial Court further placed reliance on the settlement of issues in April, 2019 and the examination of the plaintiff was examined on 01.09.2022. The Commercial Court recognised that the Suit had already been delayed and that there had been no progress in the suit since 20.09.2024.

36. We do not find any error in the reasons given by the Commercial Court, particularly in view of the stricture of Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the CCA. We hence find the Civil Revision Petition to be devoid of merit.

37. C.R.P.No.2746 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.