VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LTD. V. M:S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Page 2,3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 93 OF 2023

[@ SLP (C) No. 10129 of 2022]
VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
M/S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 3930 of 2022, by which the High
Court has set aside the order passed by the Commercial Court
refusing to permit the original defendants (respondents herein) to
file additional documents and consequently permitted the defendants
(respondents) to file additional documents in the Original Suit
filed by the original plaintiff (appellant herein), the original
plaintiff (appellant herein) has preferred the present appeal.
We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
There is a serious dispute whether in the Original Suit, which
was at the relevant time not a commercial suit and thereafter on
coming into force the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the
Signature Not Verified
2015 Act’), the suit being transferred to the Commercial Court,

Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2023.01.07
10:29:13 IST
Reason:
provisions of the 2015 Act, as amended from time to time, more
1
particularly Order XI, CPC applicable to the commercial suit shall
be applicable. It is required to be noted that as per the
provisions of the 2015 Act as such, the provisions of Order VII
Rule 14, CPC shall not be applicable and the parties shall be
governed by the provisions of Order XI, CPC as applicable to
Commercial Courts.
However, keeping the said question apart, assuming that Order
VII Rule 14 shall be applicable, in the facts and circumstances of
the case and considering the averments made in the application
filed by the respondents permitting them to file additional
documents, we are of the opinion that the conditions set out in
Order VII Rule 14 have not been satisfied at all. Merely, because
the records were voluminous cannot be a ground to produce the
additional documents subsequently and that too after the evidence
of the plaintiff (appellant) was concluded and even some of the
witnesses on behalf of the defendants (respondents) were examined.
In the cross-examination, specific questions were asked to the
witnesses of the defendants (respondents), which were examined with
respect to some of the documents sought to be produced now and the
answer was that those documents are not produced. The cross-
examination was in the year 2019 and the present application for
additional documents was filed thereafter in the year 2021.
Therefore, it can be said that it is a clear attempt on the part of
the defendants (respondents) to fill-in the lacuna. It is neither
a case on behalf of the defendants (respondents) that the documents
were not in their custody or possession nor that they were not
aware of such documents which are now sought to be produced as
2
additional documents. Thus, the impugned order passed by the High
Court permitting the defendants (respondents) to file additional
documents in the teeth of Order VII Rule 14, CPC is unsustainable.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds and the impugned order passed by the High
Court permitting the defendants (respondents) to file additional
documents is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by
the Commercial Court refusing to permit the original defendants
(respondents) to file additional documents is hereby restored.
The civil appeal is allowed in the facts and circumstances of
the case. No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
...................J.
(M.R. SHAH)
....................J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi;
January 5, 2023.
3
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 93/2023 @ SLP (C) No. 10129 of 2022
VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 05-01-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
For Appellant(s) Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Adv.

Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Radhakrishna S. Hegde, Adv.

Mr. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, AOR
Mr. Krishna Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (NISHA TRIPATHI)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LTD. V. M:S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Page 2,3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LTD. V. M:S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Page 2,3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LTD. V. M:S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Page 2,3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 93 OF 2023

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD. Appellant

M/S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at

Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 3930 of 2022, by which the High

refusing to permit the original defendants (respondents herein) to

file additional documents and consequently permitted the defendants

(respondents) to file additional documents in the Original Suit

filed by the original plaintiff (appellant herein), the original

plaintiff (appellant herein) has preferred the present appeal.

We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

There is a serious dispute whether in the Original Suit, which

was at the relevant time not a commercial suit and thereafter on

2015 Act’), the suit being transferred to the Commercial Court,

provisions of the 2015 Act, as amended from time to time, more

be applicable. It is required to be noted that as per the

provisions of the 2015 Act as such, the provisions of Order VII

governed by the provisions of Order XI, CPC as applicable to

However, keeping the said question apart, assuming that Order

VII Rule 14 shall be applicable, in the facts and circumstances of

the case and considering the averments made in the application

filed by the respondents permitting them to file additional

documents, we are of the opinion that the conditions set out in

the records were voluminous cannot be a ground to produce the

additional documents subsequently and that too after the evidence

of the plaintiff (appellant) was concluded and even some of the

witnesses on behalf of the defendants (respondents) were examined.

In the cross-examination, specific questions were asked to the

witnesses of the defendants (respondents), which were examined with

respect to some of the documents sought to be produced now and the

additional documents was filed thereafter in the year 2021.

Therefore, it can be said that it is a clear attempt on the part of

the defendants (respondents) to fill-in the lacuna. It is neither

a case on behalf of the defendants (respondents) that the documents

aware of such documents which are now sought to be produced as

Court permitting the defendants (respondents) to file additional

documents in the teeth of Order VII Rule 14, CPC is unsustainable.

Court permitting the defendants (respondents) to file additional

the Commercial Court refusing to permit the original defendants

(respondents) to file additional documents is hereby restored.

The civil appeal is allowed in the facts and circumstances of

the case. No order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Civil Appeal No(s). 93/2023 @ SLP (C) No. 10129 of 2022

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD. Appellant(s)

M/S BANGALORE METROPOLITAN

Date : 05-01-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

For Appellant(s) Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Radhakrishna S. Hegde, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (NISHA TRIPATHI)

You might also like