ORDER Per: Justice Hirdesh:- 1. This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner- defendant against order dated 7th of February, 2024 as well as subsequent order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Sixth Civil Judge, ClassI, Gwalior (in short '' the Commercial Court'') in COM No.04 of 2020 (arising out of original Regular Civil Suit No.4-B of 2015) whereby application filed by respondent- plaintiff under section 151 of CPC (IA No.01 of 2023, dated 21.2.2023) for taking documents (three bills) on record, which could not be exhibited at the time of filing of plaint, has been allowed as well as subsequent application filed by plaintiff under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC seeking production of bills and paper publications has been allowed. 2. Necessary facts for disposal of present petition, in short, are respondentplaintiff (Firm) filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior on 28th of August, 2015, seeking recovery of money of Rs.55,33,021/- along-with interest and cost of litigation, pleading therein that respondent is an Advertising Agency, through which petitioner- defendant had got certain advertisements published in Newspapers and he did not make payment of entire amount due to the plaintiff as charges in regard to advertisements. In reply, defendant filed his WS and denied plaint averments. It was pleaded that he had paid entire amount due and plaintiff had forged the Bills for advertisements which were not even published in newspapers. An application under Order 11 rule 12 of CPC was filed by him on 5.2.2016 and the same was allowed by the Civil Court vide order dated 8.3.2016, with a direction to plaintiff to file an affidavit. In pursuance thereof, plaintiff submitted an affidavit in the shape of application under Order 11 rule 13 of CPC. In counter, defendant filed an application under Order 11 rule 21 read with section 151 of CPC on 11.2.2020 seeking dismissal of suit. Plaintiff filed its affidavit under Order 11 rule 12 of CPC on 19.22020. Vide order dated 19.10.2020, the instant suit filed on behalf of plaintiff was transferred by the Civil Court to the Commercial Court in exercise of powers vested under section 15 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, whereby the instant transferred suit was subsequently renumbered as COMM No.04 of 2020. Vide order dated 19.10.2020, the instant suit filed on behalf of plaintiff was transferred by the Civil Court to the Commercial Court in exercise of powers vested under section 15 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, whereby the instant transferred suit was subsequently renumbered as COMM No.04 of 2020. Plaintiff filed an application on 21.2.2023 under section 151 of CPC before the Commercial Court, seeking permission to get the bills exhibited in evidence, pleading that bills pertaining to the advertisements published in newspapers between 15th of March, 2014 and 17th of September, 2014 could not be produced on account of bona fide mistake and the bill dated 31.1.2014 could not be placed by it on record at the time of filing of plaint. In reply, on 16th of June, 2023 defendant filed his reply to the application filed by plaintiff under section 151 of CPC, inter alia alleging that the copies of forged bills were sought to be brought on record by plaintiff in order to harass him and the application is not supported by any affidavit, therefore, the same deserves to be rejected. The Commercial Court allowed application of plaintiff under section 151 of CPC vide order dated 7th of February, 2024. Therefore, defendant is before this Court. 3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner- defendant that it was necessary for plaintiff to produce all documents on which plaintiff relied in plaint averements within thirty days from the date on which, the instant civil suit was transferred to Commercial Court. The Commercial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing application of plaintiff under section 151 of CPC, which was, in effect, an application under Order 7 rule 14(3) of CPC and the same is prohibited in Commercial Suit as per provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. By way of IA No.11938 of 2024, petitioner- defendant sought amendment of pleadings of present petition and bring additional documents on record and contended that plaintiff has filed Statement of Truth on 10.8.2024 before the Commercial Court, four years after transfer of original civil suit to the Commercial Court on 19.10.2020, with a declaration that all the documents in his power and possession, have been produced before the Civil Court at the time of filing of plaint. Even thereafter, plaintiff filed another application on 5.10. 2024 under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC seeking permission of Court to bring more documents on record. Even thereafter, plaintiff filed another application on 5.10. 2024 under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC seeking permission of Court to bring more documents on record. The said application was allowed by Commercial Court vide order dated 21.10.2024, although provisions of Order 7 rule 14 of CPC do not apply to the Commercial Court and secondly, production of documents is precluded after filing of Statement of Truth and an affidavit under Order 11 rule 13 of CPC. Therefore, Commercial Court has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order dated 21.10.2024, subsequent to filing of the present miscellaneous petition. Being emboldened by success in getting documents on record, plaintiff has repeatedly filed application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC on 23.11.2024 seeking leave of the Court to produce even more documents and said application is pending consideration before Commercial Court. It is further contended that this Court has already granted stay in favour of defendant vide order dated 20.12.2024. Conduct of plaintiff in filing multiple applications for production of documents after filing of plaint, belies Declaration on Oath (Statement of Truth). Production of any document relating to an event prior to filing of suit, can only be allowed with leave/permission of Court and that too, for strong or reasonable cause after due verification of pleadings as enunciated in rule 15-A of Commercial Courts Act. This is so, because provisions of Order 11 as applicable to the Commercial Court, would govern the procedure, as has been held by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar GB, AIR 2021 SC 4303 . It is further contended that it is settled position of law that making and proof of original documents should be done unless the conditions specified in section 65 of the Evidence Act are satisfied. It was incumbent on the plaintiff seeking the original bills exhibited which were alleged to be produced earlier instead of producing photocopies of same to prove its contents. Adoption of such a course is declared to be unlawful as has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha v. Ratnashree, AIR 2006 MP 107 . Adoption of such a course is declared to be unlawful as has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha v. Ratnashree, AIR 2006 MP 107 . On these grounds, it is prayed that documents produced after filing Statement on Truth/affidavit dated 19.2.2020 by the plaintiff may kindly be treated as inadmissible in evidence by setting aside the impugned orders and applications of plaintiff under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC filed on 5.10.2024 and 23.11.2024 be rejected. 4. On the other hand, by supporting the impugned orders, learned Counsel for respondent- plaintiff opposed contentions of defendant and submitted that there are so many bulky documents and the plaintiff was unable to produce each and every document at the time of filing of plaint. Non-production of additional documents was on account of bona fide mistake. As such, documents which are sought by plaintiff to be relied upon and sought to be exhibited/ produced on record, are very much necessary for just decision of dispute. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned orders as well as documents available on record. 6. So far as the question regarding Declaration on Oath/affidavit in the form and manner as prescribed under Order VI of Rule 15-A, it would be necessary to go through herein-below the inserting rule 15 under the Commercial Courts Act in the light of Amendment of First Schedule:- ''4. Amendment of First Schedule.— (A) xxxx (B) xxxx (ii) after Rule 15, the following Rule shall be inserted, namely:–– ‘‘15A. Verification of pleadings in a commercial dispute. —(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 15, every pleading in a commercial dispute shall be verified by an affidavit in the manner and form prescribed in the Appendix to this Schedule. (2) An affidavit under sub-rule (1) above shall be signed by the party or by one of the parties to the proceedings, or by any other person on behalf of such party or parties who is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case and who is duly authorized by such party or parties. (3) Where a pleading is amended, the amendments must be verified in the form and manner referred to in sub-rule (1) unless the Court orders otherwise. (3) Where a pleading is amended, the amendments must be verified in the form and manner referred to in sub-rule (1) unless the Court orders otherwise. (4) Where a pleading is not verified in the manner provided under sub-rule (1), the party shall not be permitted to rely on such pleading as evidence or any of the matters set out therein. (5) The Court may strike out a pleading which is not verified by a Statement of Truth, namely, the affidavit set out in the Appendix to this Schedule.”; 7. Regarding disclosure, discovery and inspection of documents in suit before Commercial Court, the following provisions of Order XI (3) under Commercial Courts Act read as under:- ''(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.'' 8. The above Provisions make it clear that it is the duty of plaintiff to file all original documents along-with plaint and give an Affidavit or declaration on oath that no other documents are in his/her/its power, possession, control and custody at the time of filing of plaint. But, above Provisions are procedural law. 9. Procedure is handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in a way of Court while doing substantial justice. If procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to adversary party, Court must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. [See Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706 ]. 10. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He/she has only right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. [See Blyth v. Blyth (1966 (1) All E.R. 524 (HL)]. 11. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. [See Blyth v. Blyth (1966 (1) All E.R. 524 (HL)]. 11. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. [See Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors. ( AIR 1998 SC 1827 )]. 12. On perusal of impugned orders, it appears that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to petitioner- defendant for production of documents by the plaintiff, which could not be produced by plaintiff with plaint either due to bona fide mistake or documents were not in possession/custody of plaintiff. It cannot be said that these documents are filed by plaintiff to fill up lacuna. Defendant has sufficient opportunity before the Commercial Court for cross-examination of plaintiff in respect of alleged documents sought by the plaintiff and may also adduce evidence in rebuttal at the time of evidence. No prejudice and grave injustice is caused to defendant. 13. In view of above, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, present petition devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 7th of February, 2024 and subsequent order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Commercial Court, Gwalior in COM No.04 of 2020 are affirmed. However, learned Commercial Court is directed to consider the Interlocutory Application(s), if any, pending before it, filed either of the parties, with due care and caution and decide the Commercial Suit/trial in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules.