Introduction
The Bombay High Court, in its recent judgment, highlighted the significant implications for the procedural aspects of commercial litigation, particularly concerning Order XI and Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Court held that when a Plaintiff intends to place documents on record through an amendment, it must be tested under both Order VI Rule 17 and Order XI of the CPC.

Facts of the Case
The Plaintiff, Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd., sought specific performance of a development agreement concerning certain parking spaces in a property. The Plaintiff filed an Application for the amendment of the plaint, leading to a dispute over the procedural requirements under Order XI and Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

The core dispute revolved around the Plaintiff's proposed amendment to the plaint, which sought to add specific relief regarding car parking spaces. The Defendants objected, arguing that the amendment must satisfy the requirements of both Order XI and Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

Order VI Rule 17 governs the amendment of pleadings in civil Suits. It allows the court to permit amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The rule emphasizes that the amendment should not cause injustice to the other side.

Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the discovery and inspection of documents, underwent significant amendments under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. These amendments were introduced to streamline and expedite the process of discovery in commercial disputes. Key changes include the mandatory disclosure of all documents in possession, control, or power of the parties at the outset of the litigation, along with the plaint and written statement. The introduction of electronic discovery recognises the relevance of digital documents in modern business practices. Specific timelines were set for the completion of discovery and inspection, and penalties for non-compliance were strengthened. A provision was also added to allow for the imposition of costs for non-compliance with discovery rules. These amendments reflect a concerted effort to enhance transparency, reduce delays, and ensure a more efficient and accountable system for handling commercial litigation in India, aligning with the objectives of the Commercial Courts Act to provide for the speedy resolution of commercial disputes.

Plaintiff's Arguments
The Plaintiff contended that the amendment should be considered under Order VI Rule 17 alone, as it governs the amendment of pleadings. The Plaintiff relied on judgments including Nelson Motis v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711], T.N. State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [(2007) 7 SCC 636], and Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu [(2002) 7 SCC 559] to argue for a literal interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and a liberal approach to pre-trial amendments. The Plaintiff contended that the proposed amendment and additional documents were relevant to the real question in controversy, that their failure to include them earlier was due to oversight, and that they would not cause prejudice to the Defendants. Emphasizing the clear language of the statute, the Plaintiff's primary argument was that the amendment should be considered under Order VI Rule 17 alone, without needing to satisfy the requirements of Order XI of the CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act.

Defendants' Arguments
The Defendants countered that the proposed amendment must also satisfy Order XI, as it sought to place documents on record, emphasising the importance of procedural requirements in Commercial Suits. Defendants relied on judgments including State of Rajasthan v. Gopi Kishan Sen [(1992) 3 SCC 31], Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo [(2011) 8 SCC 539], and Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliayn v. Vinay Kumar G.B. [(2018) 6 SCC 287] to emphasize the need for a harmonious interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 and Order XI of the CPC in commercial suits. They argued for strict compliance with Order XI as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, contending that the Plaintiff must establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents with the plaint. The Defendants also underscored the precedence of special statutes over general provisions, reflecting the intention to expedite commercial disputes. Their focus was on adhering to the specific procedural requirements of Order XI and the importance of the Commercial Courts Act in guiding the court's decision

Conclusion of the Court
The Court held that the proposed amendment must satisfy a twin test, meeting the requirements of both Order VI Rule 17 (for amendment of pleadings) and Order XI (for placing documents on record). The Court emphasised the importance of the Commercial Courts Act as a special statute, requiring strict adherence to procedural norms. The Court laid down a principle that in commercial Suits, when a Plaintiff intends to place documents on record through an amendment, it must be tested under both Order VI Rule 17 and Order XI of the CPC¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar