Facts of the Case

The petitioner, plaintiff in a commercial suit (CS (Comm.) No. 306 of 2020) for recovery of Rs. 12,55,817 against the respondent company and its directors, sought to challenge a trial court order that had dismissed her application under Order XVIII Rules 2 and 17 read with Section 151 CPC. That application — filed only after final arguments in the suit had already concluded and the matter was listed for judgment — sought permission to lead rebuttal evidence by re-examining her own witness (PW-1) regarding certain emails put to the defence witness in cross-examination, and to summon the defendant company's financial records from the Registrar of Companies and the GST Department.

The trial court had dismissed this application, holding that under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, a plaintiff is entitled to rebuttal evidence only where the onus of an issue lies on the defendant — whereas here, the onus of proving entitlement to recovery lay on the plaintiff herself — and that the application, filed on the very day the matter was listed for judgment, appeared intended only to delay proceedings.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the trial court's refusal to permit belated rebuttal evidence and summoning of GST/financial records, filed after final arguments concluded, warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is available at all against interlocutory orders in commercial suits, given the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The trial court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to lead further evidence, including summoning the defendant's GST returns and financial records, especially given matters that arose during cross-examination of the defence witness.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 bars any revision application or petition against an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court; the scope of interference under Article 227 in such matters is extremely narrow and reserved for orders passed without inherent jurisdiction.
  • The petitioner's successive applications, filed only after arguments concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment, appeared designed to delay the final judgment, contrary to the object of the Commercial Courts Act.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that its Article 227 jurisdiction over interlocutory orders in commercial suits must be exercised very sparingly, particularly given Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act's bar on revisions, so as not to defeat the Act's object of expeditious disposal.
  • It found the trial court's reasoning legally correct: under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, rebuttal evidence is available to a plaintiff only on issues where the onus lies on the defendant, which was not the case here.
  • It further held that under Order XI Rule 1(6) CPC (as amended for commercial suits), the plaintiff had ample earlier opportunity to seek production of the defendant's GST returns and financial records, and could not seek to do so for the first time after final arguments had concluded, citing Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B. and Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store.
  • The petition under Article 227 was dismissed.

Important Clarification

GST returns feature here only as one category of financial document the plaintiff belatedly sought to summon as evidence in a private commercial recovery suit — no GST-law question was examined by the Court. The decision is a Commercial Courts Act and Civil Procedure Code ruling about the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction over interlocutory orders, and the strict timelines for seeking document production in commercial suits.

Sections Involved

  • Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Section 8 (bar against revision of interlocutory orders)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XI Rule 1 (as amended for commercial suits), Order XVIII Rules 2, 3 and 17
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of against the petitioner — the petition under Article 227 was dismissed, and the trial court's refusal to permit belated evidence was upheld.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
  • Case No.: CM(M) 1480/2023 & CM APPL. 47112/2023
  • Coram: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
  • Date of Judgment: 13.09.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.