The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld an order passed by the Special Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam, permitting the plaintiff to file a board resolution and recall a witness during the evidence stage of a commercial suit. The Court held that such relief can be granted in the interest of justice and dismissed the challenge brought through civil revision petitions.
In this matter, a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan delivered the judgment, holding that the discretion exercised by the Special Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity and warranted no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Background
The case arose out of C.O.S. No.17 of 2018 filed by M/s. I.S.N. Raju Infrastructures (P) Ltd. against M/s. Unitech–NCC (JV) and others before the Special Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff sought recovery of ₹6,56,64,661 with interest and costs. During trial, the plaintiff moved two applications:
- I.A. No. 472 of 2023 – to file a board resolution dated 30.06.2023 ratifying the Executive Director’s actions in connection with the suit.
- I.A. No. 471 of 2023 – to mark certain documents filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) pursuant to earlier court directions.
These were allowed by the trial court through its common order dated 21.12.2023, subject to specific conditions and payment of ₹2,000 in costs.
Arguments
The petitioner (defendant no.1) contended that the suit was filed without proper authorization and that the plaintiff was seeking to cure this defect after cross-examination. It was further argued that the applications were not maintainable under the amended CPC provisions applicable to commercial disputes, particularly Order XI Rule 1.
The plaintiff responded that the objection was never raised in the written statement and came up only during cross-examination. The board resolution, passed subsequently, ratified the Executive Director’s acts. As for the NHAI documents, the plaintiff acted promptly after the court’s direction and sought to mark them accordingly.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
On the issue of maintainability, the Court referred to its earlier decision in P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy v. Sreepada Real Estates, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4102, and held:
“The bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act to maintainability of the civil revision petition… does not operate to bar the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”
On merits, the Court noted that the board resolution was not in existence at the time the plaint was filed. Therefore, the rigour of Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC did not apply. The Court emphasized that procedural law should not be allowed to obstruct substantial justice and cited Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 and Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706 in support.
The Court held that:
“If the document was not in power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff at the time of filing, the rigour under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC does not apply.”
Further, recalling a witness was permissible under the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC, and the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously.
The High Court concluded that there was no legal error in the Special Court’s order. It dismissed C.R.P. Nos. 349 & 497 of 2024, reiterating that interference under Article 227 is warranted only in cases of patent illegality or perversity, which was not present here.
Case Title: M/s. Unitech–NCC (JV) v. M/s. I.S.N. Raju Infrastructures (P) Ltd & Others
Case Numbers: C.R.P. Nos. 349 & 497 of 2024
