M/S. LEVITATE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
Vs.
M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANOTHER
( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )
Civil Appeal No. ....of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 13250 of 2026)
Decided on : 09-07-2026
A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Orrder 11 Rules 1(4) & 5 (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Sch.) — Additional documents, filing of — Standard of "reasonable cause" — Held, plaintiff obliged to file all documents in its possession along with plaint; leave to file additional documents within 30 days of institution of suit permissible only on establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure and justification for subsequent discovery — Distinction between "reasonable cause" (applicable standard under Or. XI Rr. 1(4)/(5)) and "sufficient cause" reaffirmed, following Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71 — However, even applying the lower threshold of "reasonable cause", application for additional documents rightly rejected where documents were in appellant's possession since inception of suit and no explanation furnished for delay of over five years — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Paras 8-13)
B. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Ss. 12-A, 13(1-A), 14, 15 — Object and scheme — Timelines — Held, CCA and Sch. amendments to CPC embody a purposive scheme geared towards expeditious resolution of commercial disputes; provisions require strict construction — Section 15 (transfer of pending suits) makes clear that CCA procedure applies even to suits pending prior to commercial designation, subject only to the exception of judgment already reserved — Piecemeal or "stop and go" approach to production of evidence in commercial suits impermissible, irrespective of volume of documents — Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP, (2020) 15 SCC 585 and Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1, relied on (paras 5-9, 14.2, 15)
C. Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — "Sufficient cause" — General principles — Held, sufficient cause is not a loose panacea for pressing negligent or stale claims; party must show it acted diligently and was not negligent; courts cannot extend statutory timelines on equitable grounds — State of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460 and Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, relied on (para 11)
D. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 18 Rule 17 — Recall of witness for further examination — Held, additional documents cannot be introduced through recall of plaintiff's own witness on the ground that new facts emerged during cross-examination, since a plaintiff leading evidence is expected to anticipate the questions likely to be put to its witness by the opposite side (Para 12)
Facts
— The appellant (LMT) and respondent no. 1 (SCB) entered into an IT Professional Services Agreement dated 19-2-2013 for development and management of a mobile application. Following take-down of the app by SCB, LMT invoked the revenue-sharing clause and claimed Rs. 4,46,50,000 with interest; on denial, filed Civil Suit (OS) No. 1705 of 2015 before the Delhi High Court, later renumbered as CS (Comm.) 169 of 2018 on transfer to the Commercial Division. Issues were framed on 16-11-2016; an earlier application for additional documents was allowed on 30-1-2018. Evidence of the plaintiff's witness (PW-1) concluded on 9-5-2023. LMT thereafter filed IA No. 24359 of 2023 seeking to place further documents (inter-party emails, vendor agreements, backend server data) on record and to recall PW-1, citing volume of records and facts allegedly emerging in cross-examination. The Single Judge, applying the "reasonable cause" test, rejected the application by judgment dated 12-2-2025. LMT appealed.
HELD
A. While LMT was technically correct that the applicable standard under Or. XI R. 1(4)/(5) CPC (as amended for commercial suits) is "reasonable cause" rather than "sufficient cause", the distinction did not avail it on facts, since no justification emerged for the delay even on the lower threshold. (paras 10, 12)
B. All documents sought to be produced were in LMT's possession both at the time of filing the plaint and at the time of the earlier (2018) application for additional documents; the grounds now urged — volume of records, difficulty in tracking emails — were substantially identical to those raised in the first application. A second, belated application five years later, seeking to fill gaps in the plaintiff's own evidence after conclusion of its witness's examination, amounted to an impermissible piecemeal approach contrary to the object of the Commercial Courts Act. (paras 13, 14.1)
C. The argument that strict CCA timelines could not be applied to a suit instituted prior to the Act's commercial designation was rejected; S. 15 CCA expressly mandates transfer of pending suits of specified value to the Commercial Division/Court, upon which CCA procedure applies in full, the sole exception being where judgment stands reserved. (para 14.2)
D. Appeal dismissed; impugned order of the Single Judge upheld. Trial court directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. (para 17)
