ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.4 to 6 in Commercial O.S.No.770/2023 by the Court of LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, the plaintiff therein has preferred this writ petition. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.Nos.4 to 6 before the Commercial Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act') for recalling of PW-1, re-opening of the case of the plaintiff and seeking permission to produce certain documents. The same has been rejected by the Commercial Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is in retail business of gold and silver bullion and that the defendant is a regular customer and that he had purchased certain jewellery worth Rs.1,45,91,947/-, for which he did not pay the agreed consideration and hence, the Commercial suit came to be filed. It is submitted that along with the plaint, the suit document as contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been produced by the plaintiff/petitioner herein. However, in the cross- examination, the defendant/respondent herein had put questions denying the earlier transactions that the petitioner had with the respondent, which constrained the petitioner to file the aforementioned applications to produce the following documents:- DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED 1. Ledger Account with cash bills pertaining to defendant from 05.04.208 to 02.02.2023 (38 pages) 2. Sales Register Extract with GST filed forms for September 2022, November 2022 & February 2023 (15 pages) 3. Stock Register Extract 27/01/2023 to 02/02/2023 for gold, silver and diamond studded jewelry (3 pages)." 4. Vouchers issued to the workmen/kariagr in respect of gold, silver and diamond (16 pages). 5. Income Tax returns for the financial year 2022 to 2023 (9 pages)" However, the trial Court rejected the said applications on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out by the petitioner for allowing the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Order XI Rule 1(1) of the Act reads as under:- 1. 5. Income Tax returns for the financial year 2022 to 2023 (9 pages)" However, the trial Court rejected the said applications on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out by the petitioner for allowing the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Order XI Rule 1(1) of the Act reads as under:- 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 plaintiff's 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." 5. Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Act, reads as under:- "(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. Thus, when the plaintiff files a commercial suit, he is required to file list of all the documents in his power, possession, control or custody pertaining to the suit along with the plaint. However, if he establishes a reasonable cause for not filing the said documents along with the plaint, the Court may grant him leave at a subsequent stage to file the said documents. The principle behind the said provision of law is that there should be no delay in disposal of the Commercial suit and at the same time, interest of justice has to be served. The principle behind the said provision of law is that there should be no delay in disposal of the Commercial suit and at the same time, interest of justice has to be served. Thus, the Courts are required to balance these two aspects and they are required to consider whether the plaintiff is trying to unduly drag the proceedings or abuse the process of the Court or that he genuinely did not possess the said documents at the time of filing of the plaint or that the suit documents produced are not necessitated due to defense taken by the defendant in the written statement or that the cross-examination warranted the plaintiff to produce certain documents to clarify the stand taken by the parties concerned and it should be only in the nature of replicating or clarifying the case already made out by the plaintiff and not for introducing a new case altogether. The said aspect has to be considered by the Court depending upon the facts and situation of each case. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed a case for recovery of money and he has produced vouchers and bills in support of the alleged sale said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. In the plaint, the petitioner has also averred that respondent is his regular customer. However, the averment that the defendant was his regular customer has been denied by the respondent, which warranted the plaintiff to make the present application. The reason attributed by the plaintiff for not filing the said application immediately after filing the written statement by the defendant but after cross- examination, is that the said documents were in the custody of his Auditor and that he took some time to get the same from his Auditor and therefore, there has been delay in making the application. 8. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the application filed by the petitioner is allowed, PW-1 is recalled and allowed to mark documents mentioned in the application and if the respondent is granted opportunity of cross-examining the petitioner. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.4 to 6 in Com.O.S.No.770/2023 by the Court of the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii. I.A.Nos.4 to 6 filed by the petitioner for recall of PW-1, to re-open the case of the petitioner/plaintiff and seeking permission to produce documents mentioned in the said applications are hereby allowed. iv. PW-1 shall be present before the Court and shall not pray for further adjournments and make him available for cross-examination. v. Petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent on the next date of hearing before the trial Court.