Delhi District Court Atul Jain, Prop Sapan Paper Impex vs Anuj Dayal Prop M/S Sai Print Pack on 5 October, 2023 1 CS (Comm.) 42/2023 Atul Jain vs. Anuj Dayal 05.10.2023 ORDER 1. By way of present order, I shall decide an application, filed by plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1 (c) (ii) CPC r/w Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 & Section 151 CPC to file additional documents in answer to the case set up by the defendant. 2. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Dushyant Sisodia, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff/applicant and also by Sh. Himanshu Sharma, proxy for Sh. Omkar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant. I have also perused the record as well as reply to the application, filed on behalf of defendant. 3. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff placed various purchase orders of kraft papers as per specifications of defendant from M/s Garg Duplex & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. as well as from M/s Ashoka Pulp & Paper Pvt. Ltd. instructing direct delivery to the defendant, but in the written statement, defendant has blatantly and falsely denied the transactions and receipt of goods from the plaintiff and therefore, it is necessary for plaintiff to file ledger accounts of suppliers and bank statement of plaintiff firm showing payments made to these firms on record. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff vehemently contended that the ledger 2 accounts and bank statement of suppliers and plaintiff firm regarding payment made to the suppliers firm are in answer to case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint. It is submitted that these documents falls in the category of documents specified in clause (c) (ii) of Order XI rule 1 of Schedule attached with Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and prayed that same be taken on record. 4. Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that plaintiff has failed to show any sufficient cause as to the circumstances that prevented him from producing the aforesaid documents alongwith the plaint. It is submitted that it was for the plaintiff to annex all the documents, in his possession at the time of filing of the plaint as per Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is thus prayed that the present application be dismissed with cost. 5. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.27,83,570/ claiming that he is engaged into trading of papers and supplied kraft papers to the defendant, as per his specifications after purchasing the same from M/s Garg Duplex & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ashoka Pulp & Paper Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff has also referred the specific purchase orders by which, he instructed for direct delivery of the kraft papers to the defendant. The defendant in his written statement has denied the contents of those corresponding paragraphs of the plaint, while stating that the contents are denied in toto and that there is no outstanding balance pending against him. 3 6. List of documents as filed by the plaintiff alongwith the suit shows that he also annexed the copy of purchase orders which were placed by the plaintiff to the suppliers. However, on denial of receiving of goods/kraft papers by the defendant from plaintiff, plaintiff wants to place on record the ledger accounts of suppliers as well as bank statement of plaintiff firm to show that he placed those purchase orders to the suppliers i.e. M/s Garg Duplex & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ashoka Pulp & Paper Pvt. Ltd. for direct delivery to the defendant. 7. In these circumstances, the prayer of applicant/plaintiff to place on record the ledger accounts of suppliers firm and bank statement of plaintiff firm would be necessary to determine the matter in issue between the parties. Accordingly, application under Order XI Rule 1 (c) (ii) CPC r/w Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 & Section 151 CPC to file additional documents in answer to the case set up by the defendant stands allowed. Let these documents be taken on record. (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) District Judge (Commercial Court) NorthEast, KKD Courts, Delhi 05.10.2023