M/S TULIKA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. vs M/S ALLIED TUBES PVT. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07th July, 2025 + CM(M) 163/2025 & CM APPL. 4836/2025 M/S TULIKA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunal Sinha, Adv. versus M/S ALLIED TUBES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Jagriti Jain, Mr. Parthesh Bhardwaj, Ms. Reeya Khanna and Mr. Sparsh Saxena, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The petitioner is defending a suit which is commercial in nature. 2. Once the pleadings were complete, an application was moved from the side of the plaintiff (respondent herein) under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, seeking leave of the Court to file certain additional documents i.e. Bank Statement, Bilty and e-way bills. The application was opposed by the defendant claiming that these were, merely, filed to fill up lacuna. 3. However, the learned Trial Court, keeping in mind the fact that the case was at the initial stage as issues had not yet been framed and also while observing that the documents were necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties, has allowed the abovesaid application on 13th November, 2024. 4. Such order is under challenge. 5. Admittedly, the application was moved when the issues had not been framed. Learned Trial Court also formed an opinion that such documents Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 163/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:08.07.2025 19:40:38 were necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties. 6. Evidently, learned Trial Court has, merely, exercised its discretionary power and has permitted the application moved by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC and since, there does not appear any illegality or perversity in exercise of such discretionary power, this Court is not inclined to inter