The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed three civil revision petitions, affirming that parties in commercial suits cannot be permitted to introduce documents or recall witnesses at the belated stage of filing written arguments without establishing reasonable cause. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mandates the “expeditious disposal of commercial disputes,” and procedural safeguards must be strictly adhered to.
Background of the Case
The petitioners (defendants) and the respondent (plaintiff) are parties in a suit for recovery of money, originally filed in 2017 as O.S.No.9 of 2017. The matter was later transferred to the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of the Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam and re-numbered as C.O.S.No.10 of 2022.
After the evidence was closed and the suit reached the stage of filing written arguments, the defendants moved three Interlocutory Applications (I.As):
- I.A.No.268 of 2025: Seeking to reopen the evidence for further cross-examination of PW 1.
- I.A.No.269 of 2025: Filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to recall PW 1.
- I.A.No.270 of 2025: Filed under Order XI Rule 1 (10) CPC (as applicable to Commercial Courts) to receive a legal notice dated June 29, 2012, as documentary evidence.
The Special Judge dismissed all three applications on November 14, 2025, observing that the document sought to be produced was in the defendants’ possession all along. The defendants subsequently challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the legal notice dated June 29, 2012, was specifically mentioned in the plaintiff’s plaint, but the plaintiff had chosen not to file it. They argued that the non-filing of this document only came to their knowledge “recently at the time of preparation of arguments.” It was contended that there was no negligence on their part as the application was filed shortly after the closure of evidence.
Conversely, the court noted that the document—a legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants—was undisputedly in the “power, possession and custody” of the defendants. The court highlighted that the defendants filed their written statement in 2016 but did not disclose or produce the document at that time.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court focused on the specific mandate of Order XI Rule 1 (10) CPC for Commercial Courts, which prohibits a defendant from relying on documents in their possession that were not disclosed with the written statement, except with the leave of the Court. Such leave is contingent upon the defendant establishing “reasonable cause” for the non-disclosure.
The Bench observed:
“The mandate of law is that such leave shall be granted by the Court only upon defendants establishing the reasonable cause for non-disclosure/non-filing along with the written statement. So, in the absence of any reasonable cause forthcoming, the Court shall not grant the leave.”
Regarding the recall of a witness, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store (2013). The Bench reiterated that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and is not intended to fill up omissions in the evidence.
Quoting the cautionary principles from the K.K. Velusamy case:
“The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking… if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the cause stated by the defendants did not inspire confidence and failed to meet the standard of “reasonable cause.” It held that allowing such applications at the belated stage of written arguments would defeat the very purpose of the Commercial Courts Act.
The Court found no grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution and dismissed all three civil revision petitions.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: IDMC Limited & Others v. M/s. C-Star Engineers & Contractors
- Case No.: C. R. P. Nos. 3774, 3778 and 3779 of 2025
- Bench:i Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
- Date: April 22, 2026
