Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition (CRP) arises out of an order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Additional Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and disposal of Commercial Dispute at Hyderabad (‘Commercial Court’) in I.A. No.29 of 2025 in COS No.1 of 2023, whereby the petitioner’s application was partly allowed.

2. The petitioner before us is the plaintiff in a Suit (COS No.1 of 2023) filed for recovery of money and interest. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.29 of 2025 for permitting the plaintiff to receive certain documents which were originally filed as photocopies with the Plaint.

3. The respondents/defendants opposed the application and the Commercial Court, after considering the case sought to be made by the parties, partly allowed the I.A. granting leave to the plaintiff to file additional documents i.e., a Certified Copy of the registered Sale Deed bearing No.6752 of 2023 dated 12.06.2023 and the orders passed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) in CP (IB) No.361/09/HDB/2022 dated 22.02.2024 sought for subject to the relevancy, admissibility and proof of the said documents and upon payment of cost of Rs.2000/- payable to the respondents.

4. The present CRP has been filed against the impugned order to the extent of the Commercial Court in not permitting the petitioner to bring the remaining documents on record.

5. Both the parties are represented.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the documents which were disallowed by the Commercial Court have been already part of the Plaint in the form of photocopy. The plaintiff however could not produce the additional documents in original at the time of filing of the Plaint and hence subsequently filed the I.A. for bringing these documents on record.

7. Counsel submits that the relevant Rule of Order XI of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 permits bringing such documents on record. It is also submitted that the defendants would not be prejudiced if the Trial Court allowed the documents to be received as additional documents in the Plaint.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the petitioner has taken several adjournments in proceeding with the Suit and subsequently filed the I.A. at a belated stage, after framing of issues and the examination-in-chief of PW.1.

9. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the first point which strikes this Court is that the petitioner filed the I.A. for receiving additional documents under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. The I.A. does not mention any provision under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 even though the Suit admittedly is a Commercial Suit and is being tried by the Commercial Court at Hyderabad. The correct provision which should have been mentioned is Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as amended by the 2015 Act.

10. Order XI of the CPC as amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 relates to ‘Disclosure, Discovery and inspection of documents in suits before the commercial division of a high court or a commercial court.’ The relevant Sub-Rules under Rule 1 of Order XI are given below.

11. Order XI Rule 1 (1 to 6) sets out Disclosure and discovery of documents and the obligation thereto insofar as it relates to the Plaint of a Commercial Suit.

12. Order XI Rule 1(1) outlines a mandatory obligation on the plaintiff 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 Plaint, including the documents enumerated under Clauses (a) and (b) of the Sub-Rule. The plaintiff shall produce the documents referred to and relied on in the Plaint as prescribed under clause (a). Clause (b) specifies that the documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings which are in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the Plaint, irrespective of whether the same in support of or adverse to the plaintiff’s case.

13. Order XI Rule 1(2) requires the plaintiff to specify whether the list of documents filed with the Plaint were in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are originals, office copies or photocopies of the same and the list shall also set out in brief, details of policies to each document, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of custody of each document.

14. Order XI Rule 1(3) requires that 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 the plaintiff have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the Plaint and further that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody. An Explanation to the said Sub-Rule states that a declaration on oath shall be contained in the Statement of Truth as set out in the Appendix.

15. Order XI Rule 1(4) provides a second window to the plaintiff, where the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents as part of the above declaration on oath in case of urgent filings 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.

16. Order XI Rule 1(5) reinforces the mandate of disclosure by prohibiting the plaintiff from relying on any documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and which were not disclosed along with the Plaint or within the extended period set out under Sub-Rule (4). However, Sub-Rule (5) contains an exception where the Court may grant leave for the plaintiff to rely on such documents only if the plaintiff establishes reasonable cause for non- disclosure of these documents along with the Plaint.

17. The sequence of Sub-Rules as set out under Order XI Rule 1 makes it clear that the Commercial Court Act introduced a rigorous obligation on the plaintiff to be vigilant at the time of the filing in terms of the documents which were in the plaintiff power, possession, control or custody being filed along with the Plaint. The limited nature of the window available to a plaintiff who fails to file a list and photocopies of all the documents in its power, possession, control or custody along with the Plaint would be evident from the plaintiff requiring to give a declaration on oath that the plaintiff has disclosed all such documents with the additional rider that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody (Sub-Rule (3)).

18. The plaintiff is required to give a second declaration on oath on similar lines under Sub-Rule (4) where the plaintiff seeks to rely on additional documents by way of urgent filings, in that case as well, the plaintiff is required to give a declaration on oath that the plaintiff has produced all such 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.

19. The two windows given in Sub-Rules (4) and (5) carry this obligation forward, first in the time limit of thirty days under Sub-Rule (4) and subject to grant of such leave by the Court; and second by grant of leave by the Court upon the Court being satisfied that the plaintiff had established reasonable cause ‘for non-disclosure of these documents along with the Plaint’ under Sub-Rule (5). Hence, the notable difference between Sub-Rule (4) and Sub-Rule (5) is that the plaintiff must furnish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody at the time of the filing of the Plaint (Sub-Rule (5)) or within the extended time of thirty days (Sub-Rule (4)).

20. Admittedly, the petitioner’s case in the present CRP is that the petitioner filed only photocopies of certain documents along with the Plaint. The original documents/certified copies were retained by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to file a few of these documents by way of the IA.

21. Order XI Rule 1 (1) however contemplates filing photocopies of documents in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and additional documents under Sub-Rule (4), subject to compliance of the statutory requirements as stated above. Order XI Rule 1 and the Sub- Rules reinforce the mandate; 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 or within the thirty days of time limit for urgent filings and shall not be allowed to rely on documents which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and which were not disclosed along with the Plaint or within the extended period of time as set out, save and except by leave of the Court, upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for the non-disclosure of these documents along with the Plaint.

22. The significant intervention of Order XI Rule 1 is the plaintiff being pressured under strict time limits for bringing additional documents on record. The plaintiff is also prohibited from relying on documents in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody which were not disclosed along with the Plaint. The only respite available to the plaintiff is where the Court grants leave to bring such documents on record.

23. None of the Sub-Rules expand the statutory time limits on the ground that the plaintiff would be entitled to an automatic extension of time to bring additional documents on record on the ground that only photocopies were filed along with the Plaint. The sub-Rules do not lay down any requirement of filing original documents. In fact, Order XI Rule 1 (1) specifies that the plaintiff is permitted to file photocopies of all documents in its power, possession, control or custody pertaining to the Suit along with the Plaint.

24. The ground urged on behalf of the petitioner for bringing the additional documents on record is hence not supported by Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff has also failed to establish reasonable cause for filing the IA, admittedly beyond the time frame of thirty days under Order XI Rule 1 (4). The reasonable cause is non-negotiable as far as Sub-Rule (5) is concerned. The reasonable cause shown by the plaintiff in the present case can only be gleaned from paragraph No.3 of the affidavit to IA No.29 of 2025 which is set out below:

               “I submit that at the time of filing the present suit, some of the documents before this Hon’ble Court were filed in Xerox copies and the original documents/certified copies were retained by me for to the day-to-day requirements and some of the documents which are being filed now are due to the subsequent events which have happened subsequent to filing of the suit and are obtained from the government department.”

25. There is no other reason or justification given or stated in the affidavit for the belated filing of the IA. Neither paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 constitutes reasonable cause-s to exempt the plaintiff from the strictures of Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC.

26. We accordingly find the view taken by the Trial Court correctly held that the plaintiff could not make out any ground for leave to receive a few of the documents sought for. The Trial Court however allowed filing of the certified copy of the registered Sale Deed dated 12.06.2023 and the orders passed by the NCLT dated 22.02.2024. We also agree with the finding of the Trial Court that no reasonable cause was shown for non-filing of the documents which were in the plaintiff’s custody till the belated stage of marking of these documents. Notably, contrary to the statement made in paragraph No.4 of the plaintiff’s affidavit in the IA, the Trial Court found that the records did not disclose any endorsement of the Scrutiny Officer with regard to production of original documents or any leave granted by the Court in that regard. The Trial Court also disagreed with the practice of showing original/certified copies to the Scrutiny Officer at the time of filing of the Suit and taking back the documents was unusual and is not supported by any law.

27. Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants further informs the Court that two of the documents namely an Encumbrance Certificate and the Counter filed by the defendants before the NCLT were not part of the documents/photocopies filed along with the Plaint. It is also relevant that the Suit was filed on 17.01.2023 and the written statement on 21.04.2023 and issues were framed on 16.02.2024 and the matter was posted to 23.02.2024 for the evidence affidavit of the plaintiff’s witnesses. PW.1 was examined- in-chief on 08.07.2024 and eight exhibits were marked. The plaintiff sought several adjournments thereafter from July 2024 to December 2024. IA No.29 of 2025 was filed for receiving of documents on 06.12.2024. The aforesaid dates would show that there was an unexplained delay on the part of the plaintiff to proceed with the trial of the Suit.

28. By reason of the above, we are of the firm view that the petitioner has not been able to show any error in the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 by which the petitioner’s IA was partly allowed. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

29. CRP.No.121 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.