The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) challenging a trial court’s order that refused to take additional documents on record at the stage of final arguments in a decade-old suit.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the matter, upheld the trial court’s decision, ruling that a litigant cannot be permitted to file additional documents after final arguments have commenced to “fill in the lacunae” pointed out by the opposing party. The Court observed that allowing such an application at this late stage would practically result in a “de novo trial.”
Case Background
The matter, titled State Bank of India vs. Shri S.C. Goel (CM(M) 2278/2025), arose from a suit pending since the year 2015. The petitioner, State Bank of India, had approached the High Court assailing the order dated October 18, 2025, passed by the learned trial court.
The trial court had dismissed the bank’s application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which was filed after the final arguments had partly commenced. The trial court rejected the application on the grounds that there was no satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the documents at the relevant stage and that the bank was attempting to plug loopholes in its case that were exposed during the final arguments.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate, contended that the additional documents could not be filed at the appropriate stage because they were “not traceable.” She submitted that the Regional Business Office of the bank had shifted from Meerut to Muzaffar Nagar, causing the documents to be misplaced.
The counsel explained that “some of the subject additional documents were lying in Kharad Branch of Muzaffar Nagar and some were lying at Regional Business Office, Meerut.” She urged that the application deserved to be allowed, even if subject to cost.
In support of her contentions, the counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs & Anr. vs P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Kathpalia found no merit in the petition and declined to issue notice. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner.
Referring to the Sugandhi case, the Court noted that in that matter, the application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC was filed “prior to commencement of evidence of the defendant,” and a satisfactory explanation was provided.
In contrast, regarding the present case, the Court observed:
“The petitioner/defendant bank has brought this application after part final arguments were advanced, pointing out the lacunae in the case set up by the petitioner/defendant bank. The view taken by the learned trial court in the impugned order is that now the petitioner/defendant bank is trying to fill in the lacunae, which cannot be permitted.”
The High Court was critical of the “vague explanation” rendered by the bank regarding the misplaced documents. The Court remarked:
“Not a whisper has been advanced to disclose as to when the office was shifted and when the subject additional documents were misplaced and discovered by the petitioner/defendant bank… The petitioner/defendant bank is not a lay litigant or an individual person. The petitioner/defendant bank is a nationalized bank with vast paraphernalia including a law department with senior functionaries drawing salary from exchequer and none of them seems to have kept a track of record.”
The Court further noted that the evidence of the petitioner/defendant bank was closed on December 16, 2024, not by a specific court order, but on the statement of the bank’s own counsel. The suit had remained pending for final arguments for about 10 months thereafter.
Justice Kathpalia highlighted the procedural impact of allowing such a plea, stating:
“If the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner/defendant bank is granted opportunity to file additional documents, the respondent/plaintiff would have to be called again into the box for being confronted with those documents, followed by more witnesses from petitioner/defendant bank to prove those documents. Practically, it would be a case of de novo trial…”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the petitioner realized their “negligence (if not deliberate default)” only after final arguments were partly advanced. Holding that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the petition as being “devoid of merits.”
The pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
