Calcutta High Court
Usha Martin Limited vs Balurghat Technologies on 23 February, 2026
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
Judgment (2)
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
[Old No. CS/69/2023]
In CS-COM/491/2024
USHA MARTIN LIMITED
VS
BALURGHAT TECHNOLOGIES
LIMITED
For the plaintiff : Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Ms. Labanyasree Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Sarbesh Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Singh Parmar, Adv.
For the defendant : Mr. Aruni Guha, Adv.
Heard on : February 23, 2026
Judgment on : February 23, 2026
[In Court]
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :
FACTS :
1. This is a commercial suit. The defendant has not filed its written
statement. The defendant has forfeited its right to file written
2statement under the amended provisions of Rule 1 to Order VIII
of CPC, 1908.
2. Examination-in-chief of the plaintiff’s witness has been concluded.
Though the suit has been marked as undefended but the defendant
did not choose to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff. In this
regard, reliance has been placed on an order dated February 25,
2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench.
3. Today, the plaintiff has come up with an application with the
following prayers:
“(a) Leave be granted to the petitioner to disclose the
documents annexed as “C-1” to “F” of the instant
application;
(b) Leave be granted to the petitioner to prepare
Additional Judges Brief of Documents containing the
documents annexed as “C-1” to “F” of the instant
application and file the same within four weeks from
the date of the order to be made herein, or within
such time as to this Hon’ble Court may seem fit and
proper;
(c) Leave be granted to the petitioner to file Affidavit of
Evidence of its second witness, Mr. Gautam Das,
within six weeks from the date of the order to be
made herein, or within such time as to this Hon’ble
Court may seem fit and proper and leave be granted
to the petitioner to adduce oral evidence through the
said second witness Mr. Gautam Das;
(d) Costs of and incidental to this application be treated
as costs in the cause;
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
3
(e) Such further or other order or orders be passed and/or
direction or directions be given as to which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
4. Though the defendant is represented through Mr. Arani Guha,
learned advocate but since the suit is marked as undefended, the
defendant has no right of audience in this application.
SUBMISSIONS:
5. Mr. Rajarshi Dutta being ably assisted by Mr. Sarbesh Choudhury,
learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that though the
relevant documents at all material time was under the custody,
power, possession and control of the plaintiff at the time of
institution of the suit but the same were not disclosed by the
plaintiff. However, during the examination of the witness and at the
stage of argument of the suit, it was felt by the plaintiff that those
documents are essentially to be disclosed to sustain the claim in the
plaint and hence, this application has been filed.
6. Referring to Sub-Rule 1 to Sub-Rule 3 to Rule 1 of Order XI of
CPC, Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the
plaintiff submits that, these provisions provide that the plaintiff is
duty bound while instituting the suit to disclose documents in the
manner and mode prescribed therein, which were in its power,
possession, control and custody. It is a mandatory obligation on the
part of the plaintiff. With reference to Sub-Rule 4 to Rule 1 of
Order XI of CPC, it is submitted that in case of urgent filings, the
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
4
plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents, as part of
the declaration on oath and subject to grant of such leave by Court,
the plaintiff shall file such additional documents in Court, within 30
days of filing the suit, along with a declaration on oath that the
plaintiff has produced all documents in its power, possession,
control or custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the
proceedings initiated by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not
have any other documents, in its power, possession, control or
custody. Therefore, under Sub-Rule 4, an opportunity has been
granted to the plaintiff to disclose additional documents in case of
urgent filing of the suit.
7. Referring to the above provisions of CPC, Mr. Rajarshi Dutta,
learned Advocate submits that up to Sub-Rule 4 to Rule 1 an
extension was permitted which can only be granted by the Court
subject to its satisfaction and the period can be extended
accordingly.
8. Learned Advocate then refers to Sub-Rule 5 to Rule 1 of Order XI
of CPC and submits that the plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on
documents, which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control and
custody and not disclosed with plaint or within the extended period
set out in the Rules, save and except by leave of Court and such
leave can be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing a
reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint.
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
5
9. Relying upon these provisions, the plaintiff submits that due to
reasons shown in application, though the plaintiff did not disclose
these additional documents at the time of institution of the suit
while filing the plaint, but the nature of the documents are such
that they are extremely relevant to prove the case of the plaintiff in
the plaint. These documents are required to meet the query raised
by the Court.
10. In support of his contention, Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, learned Advocate
has placed reliance upon the following decisions :-
(i) A decision of this Court dated November 19, 2025 In
the matter of : Mascot Petrochem Private Limited vs.
SCIDPL and VE (JV) and Ors. rendered in IA No. GA-
COM/4/2025 (Old No. CS/204/2019) in CS-
COM/162/2024 and
(ii) Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B.
reported at (2021) 13 Supreme Court Cases 71.
11. On the expression “reasonable cause” and to explain its meaning,
Mr. Dutta, has placed reliance In the matter of : Agva Healthcare
Private Limited and Others vs. Agfa-Gevaert NV and Another
reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7914.
12. In the light of the above, Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, learned Advocate
appearing for the plaintiff submits that the instant application
should be allowed and the additional documents should be taken on
record.
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
6
DECISION:
13. After hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the
plaintiff/petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, it
appears to this Court that, the suit is an undefended suit as the
defendant has forfeited its right to file written statement. Further,
the suit rests at its argument stage as the examination in chief of
the plaintiff’s witness has been concluded and the defendant chose
not to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff.
14. Sub-Rule 5 to Rule 1 of Order XI of CPC is quoted below :-
“(5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents,
which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control
or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or
within the extended period set out above, save and
except by leave of Court and such leave shall be
granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable
cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint.”
15. On a meaningful reading of Sub-Rule 1 to Sub-Rule 3 to Rule 1, it
appears to this Court that after the enactment of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 (for short “CC Act“), it is a mandatory obligation
upon the plaintiff to disclose all documents at the time of filing of
the suit with the plaint which are in power, possession, control and
custody of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit in the manner and
mode as stated in the Rules.
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
7
16. Sub-Rule 4 shows that in case of urgent filing, the plaintiff may
seek leave to rely on additional documents, as part of the
declaration on oath and subject to grant of leave by Court, the
plaintiff shall file such additional documents in Court, within 30
days of filing of the suit along with a declaration, on oath that the
plaintiff has produced all documents in its power, possession,
control and custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the
proceedings initiated by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not
have any other documents in its power, possession, control or
custody.
17. While reading the provisions under Sub-Rule 5, this Court finds
that the plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents which
were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control and custody but
not disclosed along with the plaintiff or within the extended period
set out in the preceding Rules, save and except by leave of Court
and as such, leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff
establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the
plaint.
18. On a meaningful and conjoint reading of the above Rules, this Court
is of the considered view that even after Sub-Rule 4 stage,
legislature thought it fit to include Sub-Rule 5 while amending CPC,
where Court can exercise its discretion by granting leave to the
plaintiff to disclose additional documents even after the extended
period as provided under Sub-Rule 4. However, the discretion shall
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
8
be used upon being satisfied with the reasons shown by the plaintiff
on oath.
19. This Court is therefore, of the view that there is no absolute bar
imposed after Sub-Rule 4 stage, as Sub-Rule 5 has been engrafted
in the Code.
20. The relevant grounds on which this application has been filed are
quoted below:
“4. As will appear from the plaint filed in the instant suit, the
claim of the petitioner is two-fold one, a claim for USD
24,000 towards payment of detention charges incurred in
having to detain the vessel M.V. HAN ZHI till February 15
2021 when it was supposed to depart Kolkata Port on
February 12, 2021; and second, a claim for the expenses
incurred by the petitioner in loading goods a equivalent
quantity and quality as that of the failed consignment,
from its from its warehouse at Singapore Port, whereat
the said vessel had berthed en route the port of discharge
i.e. Hong Kong Port.
5. During the course of arguments being advanced on behalf
of the petitioner on June 12, 2025, two queries fell from
this Hon’ble Court – (a) on what basis the sum of USD
24,000 was shown to have been charged by the freight
forwarder of the petitioner towards detention charges
from February 13, 2021 to February 15 2021; and (b)
what would have been the comparative cost of loading
goods similar to the failed consignment from Kolkata Port
to Hong Kong Port vis-a-vis the cost of loading such goods
from Singapore Port to Hong Kong Port (as was done by
the petitioner in the instant case).
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
9
6. In order to answer the first of such queries, the following
document require to be disclosed in the instant suit, and
proved by way of oral evidence of further witness on
behalf of the petitioner –
a) Liner Booking Note dated January 21, 2021 issued by
ISSGF private Limited, the freight forwarder of the
petitioner;
(b) Email dated February 14, 2021 issued by Seahorse
Ship Agencies Private Limited, the shipping agent of
the petitioner, together with its attachment being Gate
Notice issued by Kolkata Port showing that the berth
gates would close on February 14, 2021 at 23:55
hours;
(c) Chain of 13 number of emails exchanged between
ISSGF Private Limited and the petitioner from February
9, 2021 to February 13, 2021.
*** *** ****
*** *** ****
14. In order to avoid breach in performing its obligations
under the Purchase Contracts, the Plaintiff arranged for
1 reel weighing 124 MT to be loaded onto the vessel
M.V. HAN ZHI on or about February 22, 2021 for it to be
delivered to COSL. This was done not only to avoid the
risk and threat of LD being imposed on the Plaintiff,
apart from the Purchase Contracts being terminated but
also to ensure immediate payment of the balance 70%
amount under the Purchase Contracts, which was
payable under the LCs.
15. At about the time when the Plaintiff arranged for
shipment of 1 reel to Singapore Port at Singapore for
shipment to Hong Kong, China for the end buyer COSL,
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
10
there was no fixed monthly calling vessel from Kolkata
to Singapore with sufficient gear capacity to handle the
loading of a single cargo unit weighing 124 MT. The
vessels that do arrive at Kolkata Port from China and
Singapore to discharge import cargo typically do not
possess the heavy lifting capacity required to handle
such a large reel. It is pertinent to mention that M.V.
HAN ZHI was chartered by the Plaintiff in its entirety,
solely to transport the cargo to Hong Kong Port. That is
why the Plaintiff could delay the sailing of the vessel till
February 15, 2021 because no other cargo except that of
the Plaintiff’s was on board.
*** *** ****
*** *** ****
17. The facts narrated in paragraph 15 and 16 hereinabove
are necessary to be proved by way of oral evidence in
order to satisfactorily answer to the second query from
this Hon’ble Court. Apropos such query of the Hon’ble
Court, it is respectfully submitted that Mr. Gautam Das,
the Senior Deputy General Manager – Logistics of the
petitioner, who had approved the loading of goods from
the petitioner’s warehouse in Singapore on board the
vessel M.V. HAN ZHI en route to Hong Kong (as will
appear from the emails dated February 17, 2021
marked as Exhibit “O” at page 15 of the Judges Brief of
Documents) is competent to adduce oral evidence in
such regard.
18. The instant suit is undefended by the respondent.
Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent
if the documents enumerated in paragraphs 6, 8, 12
and 13 hereinabove are disclosed and proved through a
second witness. In any event, it will be open for the
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
11
respondent to cross-examine such witness, if it so
chooses.”
21. The other relevant paragraphs in support of the application are also
quoted from the supplementary affidavit filed by the plaintiff
pursuant to the leave of this Court dated November 25, 2025,
which are as follows :-
“5. Out of the aforesaid, the Liner Booking Note referred to
in paragraph 4(a) hereinabove was not in the
possession of the plaintiff/petitioner at its registered
office. This document was at the Ranchi plant
wherefrom the defendant was supposed to have lifted
the goods. As such, the plaintiff/petitioner was not in a
position to disclose the same at the time of filing of the
plaint. Upon the query falling from the Hon’ble Court, the
plaintiff/petitioner got in touch with its Ranchi office and
asked its officials to conduct a thorough search of the
papers, whereupon this document was located. It is only
after conducting the search that the plaintiff could trace
out such document and made the present application for
leave to disclose the same.
6. Insofar as the emails enumerated in paragraph 4(b) and
(c) are concerned, the same all pertain to the year 2021.
As such, the emails were saved onto the archival
database of the plaintiff/petitioner and not readily
available on the computer system of the
plaintiff/petitioner. Furthermore, the plaintiff/petitioner
was under the bona fide belief and understanding that
from the invoice raised by ISSGF India Private Limited,
the freight forwarder of the petitioner and payment
advice evidencing remittance by the petitioner (which
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
12
were disclosed along with the plaint) it was evident that
a sum of USD 24,000 was paid by it on account of
detention charges for detaining the vessel M.V. HAN ZHI
from February 13, 2021 to February 15, 2021.
Therefore, the plaintiff/petitioner did not cause a deeper
search into its archived email databases to locate
further documents in support thereof. Such search into
the archived databases was only caused by the
plaintiff/petitioner apropos the query of this Hon’ble
Court as to how the said sum of USD 24,000 was
arrived at and/or what was the basis for the same.
7. Insofar as the second query of the Hon’ble Court is
concerned Le, what would have been the comparative
cost of loading goods similar to the failed consignment
from Kolkata Port to Hong Kong Port vis-a-vis the cost of
loading such goods from Singapore Port to Hong Kong
Port (as was done by the petitioner in the instant case),
the same necessitated a query by the plaintiff/petitioner
to its sister concern Usha Martin Singapore Pte Limited,
which had entered into the contract with the end
customer. The documents sought to be disclosed in
answer to the second query being Purchase Contracts
entered into by and between COSL and the Plaintiff and
Letters of Credit both dated April 8, 2021 caused to be
issued by the end buyer COSL in favour of the Plaintiff
were forwarded to the plaintiff/petitioner by its sister
concern Usha Martin Singapore Pte Limited vide email
dated September 5, 2025, which has also been
disclosed in the instant application as Annexure “F”
thereto. The documents disclosed as Annexures “D-1”
“D-2” “E-1” and “E-2” to the instant application were not
in the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner but in theCS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
13
possession of its sister concern Usha Martin Singapore
Pte Limited and thus could not have been produced with
the plaint. These documents were also sought by the
petitioner from its sister concern after the queries of this
Hon’ble Court and to establish the claim of the petitioner
in the suit.
8. There is no intentional or deliberate delay or laches on
the part of the petitioner to disclose the documents in
support of its cause. It is only after certain queries of
this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner was advised to
locate and trace further documents. These documents
are absolutely necessary to establish the claim of the
petitioner. The respondent did not file written statement
in the suit and the suit is being tried as ‘undefended
suit’. In any event, respondent shall suffer no prejudice
if the documents are allowed to be disclosed and relied
upon by the petitioner.”
22. In the matter of: Mascot Petrochem Private Limited (Supra) this
Court had dealt with a situation when the defendant came with the
plea for disclosure of additional documents which were not disclosed
along with the written statement. On reading the relevant provisions
from CPC, this Court had opined as follows :-
“20. The test is, as there is no absolute bar in law for
disclosing documents at a subsequent stage, the Court
is to examine and scrutinize the reasons shown by the
applicants and if the reasons are found to be just and
cogent, the Court in exercise of its discretion can grant
leave for subsequent disclosure instead of deprivingCS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
14
the defendants from an opportunity to defend its case
to the fullest extent.”
23. Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of : Sudhir Kumar alias S.
Baliyan (Supra) had observed as under :-
“9.5. Order 11 Rule 1(5) further provides that the plaintiff
shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which
were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or
custody and not disclosed along with plaint or
within the extended period set out above, save and
except by leave of Court and such leave shall be
granted only upon the plaintiff establishing
reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the
plaint. Therefore on combined reading of Order 11
Rule 1(4) read with Order 11 Rule 1(5), it emerges
that (i) in case of urgent filings the plaintiff may
seek leave to rely on additional documents; (ii)
within thirty days of filing of the suit; (iii) making
out a reasonable cause for non-disclosure along
with plaint.
**** **** ****
**** **** ****
**** **** ****
10.3. Even the reason given by the learned Commercial
Court that the invoices being suspicious and
therefore not granting leave to produce the said
invoices cannot be accepted. At the stage of
granting leave to place on record additional
documents the Court is not required to consider theCS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
15
genuineness of the documents/additional
documents, the stage at which genuineness of the
documents to be considered during the trial and/or
even at the stage of deciding the application under
Order 39 Rule 1 that too while considering prima
facie case. Therefore, the learned Commercial Court
ought to have granted leave to the plaintiff to rely
on/produce the invoices as mentioned in the
application as additional documents.”
24. While considering and interpreting the expression “reasonable
cause”, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
In the matter of: Agva Healthcare Private Limited and Others
vs. Agfa-Gevaert NV and Another (Supra) had observed as under:-
“14. The word used in Order XIII Rule 2 CPC (since
repealed) were “unless good cause is shown” and
the Supreme Court in the decision reported in
Madanlal V. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535], noted
the distinction between “good cause” and
“sufficient cause” and held that “good cause”
requires a lower degree of proof as compared to
“sufficient cause” and thus the power under Order
XIII Rule 2 CPC should be exercised liberally. Order
XI Rule 1(5) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 uses
the word “reasonable cause”, which would require
even a lower degree of proof as compared to “good
cause”. 13. Thus it is to be seen in the present case
whether the respondent had “reasonable cause” for
non-disclosure of documents (Annexure A to
Annexure H) along with the plaint. While dealing
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
16
with the same, learned District Judge observed as
under:-
**** **** ****
**** **** ****
**** **** ****
“16. At the stage of granting leave to place on record
additional documents, the Court is not required to
consider the genuineness of the
documents/additional documents, the stage at
which the genuineness of the documents is to be
considered is during the trial.”
25. In an adversarial litigation, right to present its case by the plaintiff
is a vested right. On a meaningful reading of the relevant provisions
laid down under Rule 1 to Order XI of CPC, this Court is further of
the view that on a proper construction and interpretation of Sub-
Rule 5 thereto, since there is no outer limit fixed by the legislature
and also there being no absolute bar even after Sub-Rule 4 stage,
subject to reasonable cause being shown in the application, the
plaintiff can be permitted to disclose additional documents even at
the argument stage.
26. The causes shown in the application are found to be just, cogent
and reasonable. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded a case that it
requires these additional documents to be brought on suit record to
meet the queries raised by the Court at the argument stage. The
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
17
worthiness and veracity of these additional documents cannot be
assessed or adjudicated upon at this stage and the same can only
be adjudicated upon at the time of final trial of the suit. At this
Order XI Rule 1 stage of CPC as amended, the jurisdiction of this
Court is limited to the extent whether to allow or not to allow these
additional documents to be brought on record.
27. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the
firm and considered view that a case has been made out and the
causes are explained to be sufficient and cogent in the application
filed by the plaintiff, allowing the plaintiff to disclose these
additional documents.
28. Accordingly, this application IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 stands
allowed with the following findings and directions :
(a) There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) to the Notice of
Motion;
(b) There shall be an order in terms of prayer (b) to the Notice of
Motion;
(c) Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file evidence on affidavit of
its second witness within six weeks from date but the said
evidence on affidavit shall be restricted only with regard to
the documents mentioned in prayer (a) to the Notice of
Motion.
29. It is needless to mention that the defendant shall be entitled to
cross-examine the second witness of the plaintiff, which shall also
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
18
be restricted only to these additional documents and not beyond
that.
30. The disclosure shall be permitted subject to payment of costs of
Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff in favour of Calcutta High
Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from date.
31. Upon costs being paid, the plaintiff shall furnish a copy of the
money receipt before the department at the time of filing of the
additional documents in accordance with law.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
Arsad/RS
CS-COM/491/2024
A.R., J.
