ORDER : Heard. 1. A suit was filed before the Commercial Court for recovery of Rs.2,42,04,198.58 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, total amounting to Rs.4,02,46,610/- against the defendants/respondents on 13.9.2019. 2. The written statement was filed by the defendants and thereafter, issues were framed on 29.11.2021 by the concerned Court. On 7.7.2022, the plaintiff moved an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that some documents were missing from the brief and when the documents were found, this application has been moved. In paragraph 3, the petitioner has categorically pleaded that “documents which the petitioner desires to produce before this Court in the matter does contain malafide intention to delay or hide its importance but was not able to be annexed during the filing due to continuous hardships during the time of the global pandemic”. The application moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commercial Court vide order dated 9.9.2022 relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B., reported in (2021) SCC OnLine 734 and Societe DES Produits Nestle S.A. and Anr. Vs. Essar Industries and Ors., reported in (2016) SCC OnLine Del 4279. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to inadvertence the documents could not be included in paragraph 3 of the application dated 7.7.2022. It is further submitted by learned Senior counsel that it was not an urgent filing as required under Order XI of the CPC and the application could have been allowed by the learned Commercial Court after imposing cost. The provisions of Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC are not penal in nature and its purpose is to facilitate the parties and not to punish. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that if the word “not” which is not written in paragraph 3 of the application dated 7.7.2022 is ignored, then also the application moved by the petitioner is not within the limitation. Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC grants 30 days from the date of institution of civil suit to file documents whereas, in the instant case, this application has been moved after lapse of 33 months and no plausible explanation has been given in this regard. Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC grants 30 days from the date of institution of civil suit to file documents whereas, in the instant case, this application has been moved after lapse of 33 months and no plausible explanation has been given in this regard. She would further submit that the contention made by learned Senior counsel with regard to urgent filing is not tenable as application was moved under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC which particularly provides for urgent filing and she also submits that the provisions of CPC have been amended with regard to Commercial Court with effect from 23.10.2015, hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended under the Act, shall apply in the trial of suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value. Section 16 of the Act in its application through commercial disputes reads as under: ‘16. (1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule. (2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value. (3) Where any provision of any rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.’ The Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act amends various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby makes significant departure from the Code. 7. Likewise, there is amendment in Order XI of the CPC for the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act. The amended Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC which is applicable to the Commercial Courts Act is given below: ‘1. 7. Likewise, there is amendment in Order XI of the CPC for the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act. The amended Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC which is applicable to the Commercial Courts Act is given below: ‘1. Disclosure and discovery of documents.—(1) Plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint, including:— (a) documents referred to and relied on by the plaintiff in the plaint; (b) documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the plaint, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the plaintiff’s case; (c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant only- (i) for the cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, or (ii) in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or (iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. (2) The list of documents filed with the plaint shall specify whether the documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are originals, office copies or photocopies and the list shall also set out in brief, details of parties to each document, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of custody of each document. (3) The plaint shall contain a declaration on oath from the plaintiff that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by him have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody. Explanation.-A declaration on oath under this sub-rule shall be contained in the Statement of Truth as set out in the Appendix. 4. Explanation.-A declaration on oath under this sub-rule shall be contained in the Statement of Truth as set out in the Appendix. 4. In case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents, as part of the above declaration on oath and subject to grant of such leave by Court, the plaintiff shall file such additional documents in Court, within thirty 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. 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. 6. The plaint shall set out details of documents, which the plaintiff believes to be in the power, possession, control or custody of the defendant and which the plaintiff wishes to rely upon and seek leave for production thereof by the said defendant.’ 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. (supra) while considering the ambient import of Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC has held as under: ‘29. However, the additional documents can be permitted to be bought on record with the leave of the court as provided in Order XI Rule 1 (4). Order XI Rule 1 (4) provides that in case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents as part of the above declaration on oath [as provided under Order 11 Rule 1 (3)] and subject to grant of such leave by Court, the plaintiff shall file such additional documents in Court, within thirty 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. 30. 30. Order XI 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 XI Rule 1 (4) read with Order XI 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. 31. Therefore a further thirty days time is provided to the plaintiff to place on record or file such additional documents in court and a declaration on oath is required to be filed by the plaintiff as was required as per Order XI Rule 1 (3) if for any reasonable cause for non disclosure along with the plaint, the documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore plaintiff has to satisfy and establish a reasonable cause for non disclosure along with plaint. However, at the same time, the requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non disclosure of the documents along with the plaint shall not be applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that those documents have been found subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody at the time when the plaint was filed. Therefore Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with plaint may not arise in the case where the additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to the filing of the plaint. 33. It emerges from the record that the first suit was filed by the plaintiff in the month of October, 2018, bearing TM No.236 of 2018, restraining the defendant from infringing and passing-off plaintiff’s Trade Marks. 33. It emerges from the record that the first suit was filed by the plaintiff in the month of October, 2018, bearing TM No.236 of 2018, restraining the defendant from infringing and passing-off plaintiff’s Trade Marks. That an ex-parte interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 29.10.2018. It appears having realized and found that the earlier suit was not in consonance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, the plaintiff withdrew the said suit being TM No.236 of 2018 on 27.07.2019 with liberty to file a fresh suit as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the second suit was filed on 31.08.2019 and within a period of thirty days from filing of the second suit the appellant herein – original plaintiff preferred the present application seeking leave of the court to file additional documents. In the application, it was specifically mentioned that so far as the invoices are concerned, the same were not in its possession at the time of the filing of the plaint and so far as the other documents are concerned they were not filed due to they being voluminous. Therefore, so far as the invoices sought to be relied on/produced as additional documents ought to have been permitted to be relied on/produced as it was specifically asserted that they were not in his possession at the time of filing of the plaint/suit.’ 9. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, a civil suit was filed alongwith list of documents on 13.9.2019. The written statement was filed by the respondents on 30.1.2020. On 7.7.2022, the plaintiff moved an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC on the ground that after receipt of the original brief, certain documents got missed during filing of the case which the plaintiff intends to rely upon in the matter. Following documents are relied upon by the Plaintiff: (a) Letter dated 12.10.2015. (b) Letter dated 31.03.2015. (c) Letter dated 24.03.2015. (d) Letter dated 09.06.2015. (e) Letter dated 02.07.2015. (f) Letter dated 28/ 29.07.2015. (g) Letter dated 24/ 25.09.2015. The plaintiff has further stated that due to COVID-19, he could not move an application and the documents which are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. 10. (b) Letter dated 31.03.2015. (c) Letter dated 24.03.2015. (d) Letter dated 09.06.2015. (e) Letter dated 02.07.2015. (f) Letter dated 28/ 29.07.2015. (g) Letter dated 24/ 25.09.2015. The plaintiff has further stated that due to COVID-19, he could not move an application and the documents which are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. 10. The additional documents in the present case having not been filed with the plaint as required by Order XI Rule 1(1) of the CPC and no sufficient cause for not filing the documents with the plaint, within the meaning of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC has been shown by the petitioner. Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC requires the petitioner to adduce sufficient cause for not filing the additional documents alongwith the plaint, an order to be permitted to place the documents beyond the period of 30 days from the date of filing of the plaint. The application filed by the petitioner in the present case does not contain any such disclosure as to why those 7 documents were not brought on record alongwith the plaint. Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC envisages a limitation of 30 days to file the documents which could not be filed alongwith the plaint, subject to grant of such leave by the Court. Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC clarifies that the plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on the documents, which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed alongwith the plaint or within the extended period set out above. In the present case, all 7 documents were issued in the year 2015 itself, much prior to filing of the civil suit, but those documents were not filed alongwith the plaint and after lapse of about 3 years, an attempt has been made to file those documents. 11. In the Commercial suit, the time period and other formalities given in the Act are binding and required to be strictly followed, which is apparent from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. (supra). 12. 11. In the Commercial suit, the time period and other formalities given in the Act are binding and required to be strictly followed, which is apparent from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. (supra). 12. In the present case, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for money recovery and no interim application was moved before the Commercial Court and to avail the benefit of extension of limitation an application has been filed under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as an “Urgent Filing”. 13. From the plaint or application filed under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC, no sort of urgency is reflected. In the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the facts of the case should disclose urgency in filing of the suit in order to avail benefit under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC. 14. Further, the preamble and statement of objects and reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘Act, 2015) are specific and the Act, 2015 has been enacted as an independent mechanism for early resolution of commercial dispute. The preamble of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 reads as under: “An Act to provide for the constitution of Commercial Courts, Commercial Appellate Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts for adjudicating commercial disputes of specified value and matters connected there with or incidental thereto.” The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act reads as under:- “Statement of Objects and Reasons” - The proposal to provide for speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes has been under consideration of the Government for quite some time. The high value commercial disputes involve complex facts and question of law. Therefore, there is a need to provide for an independent mechanism for their early resolution. Early resolution of commercial disputes shall create a positive image to the investor world about the independent and responsive Indian legal system. The high value commercial disputes involve complex facts and question of law. Therefore, there is a need to provide for an independent mechanism for their early resolution. Early resolution of commercial disputes shall create a positive image to the investor world about the independent and responsive Indian legal system. It is proposed to introduce the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Bill, 2015 to replace the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and 9 Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015 which inter alia, provides for the following namely:- (i) constitution of the Commercial Courts at District level except for the territory over which any High Court is having ordinary original civil jurisdiction; (ii) constitution of the Commercial Divisions in those High Courts which are already exercising ordinary civil jurisdiction and they shall have territorial jurisdiction over such areas on which it has original jurisdiction; (iii) constitution of the Commercial Appellate Division in all the High Court to hear the appeals against the Orders of the Commercial Courts and the Orders of the Commercial Division of the High Court; (iv) the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of such Commercial Courts and Commercial Division is proposed as one crore rupees; and (v) to amend the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 as applicable to the Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions which shall prevail over the existing High Courts Rules and other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of commercial cases. “The object and purpose of Commercial Courts Act is to ensure that the Commercial Courts, Commercial Appellate Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts and also to ensure that the commercial cases are disposed of expeditiously, fairly and at reasonable cost to the litigant.’ 15. From the preamble and statement of objects and reasons, it is quite vivid that Commercial Courts Act being a special Act shall prevail over the existing High Court Rules and other provisions of the Court of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to improve the efficiency and to do away with inordinate delay in disposal of the Commercial cases. 16. From the preamble and statement of objects and reasons, it is quite vivid that Commercial Courts Act being a special Act shall prevail over the existing High Court Rules and other provisions of the Court of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to improve the efficiency and to do away with inordinate delay in disposal of the Commercial cases. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Vinod Katare vs. State of M.P., reported in AIROnline 2021 MP 3031 and one judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in the matter of M/s. Eden Exports Company, M.C. Road Ambur VS. M/s. Hind Process Private Ltd., Chennai, reported in AIROnline 2021 MAD 3242 to buttress his submission that the delay in filing the application for production of documents can be condoned. Both the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertain to Order VIII Rule 1(3) and Order VII Rule 17 of the CPC and the orders passed in both the cases were passed in a pure civil litigation where the applications filed by the parties under Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC and Order VII Rule 17 of the CPC were rejected, therefore, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help. 17. Considering the facts stated above, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC applicable to Commercial Courts Act, 2015, I am of the opinion that the learned Commercial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC. 18. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with a cost of “Rs.10,000/-” payable by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondents/defendants.