JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 have filed two separate applications praying for leave to bring some additional documents on record. The plaintiffs say that the defendant no.1 has filed written statement to the amended plaint and in the said written statement, the defendant no.1 contended that the defendant no.1 was not aware of initiation of proceeding by Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. (GNCL) under the provisions of Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which prompted an enquiry into the matter by the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs say that in course of such enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know about the documents, which according to the plaintiffs, clearly established that the defendant no.1 was not only aware of the commencement of the proceedings by the GNCL but was in fact instrumental for institution of the same. 3. The plaintiffs say that the documents which the plaintiff nos.1 & 2 intent to bring on record was not in possession or custody of the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit and the said documents establish that the defendant no.1 had the knowledge of GNCL’s intent to initiate or initiation of proceedings under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 4. The plaintiffs say that only after filing of written statement by the defendant no.1 to the amended plaint, the plaintiffs perceived the need to make and made enquiries in this regard and in the course whereof, the plaintiffs came to know about the said documents. The plaintiffs say that the documents are relevant and material to the subject-matter of the suit and are necessary for adjudication of the suit. 5. The defendant no.1 says that the applications filed by the plaintiff nos.1 & 2 after the period of four (4) years from the date of filing of the suit and the additional documents were either already in possession of the plaintiffs or available in the public domain at the time of filing of the suit. The defendant no. 1 says that the letter dated 22nd March, 2017, was not addressed to SBI or any lender and hence it cannot be alleged that NCLT Petition for initiation of CIRP was known to the lenders. 6. The defendant no. The defendant no. 1 says that the letter dated 22nd March, 2017, was not addressed to SBI or any lender and hence it cannot be alleged that NCLT Petition for initiation of CIRP was known to the lenders. 6. The defendant no. 1 says that the copy of the reply affidavit filed by the defendant.1 in the Writ Petition was in possession of the plaintiff no.1 as the plaintiff no.1 itself had filed the Writ Petition and had been served with a copy of the said reply. The defendant no. 1 says that the plaintiffs were well aware of the existence of the Master Restructuring Agreement before filing of the suit as the NCLT, Kolkata Bench recorded the background to the Master Restructuring Agreement in its order dated 18th March, 2021 wherein the plaintiffs were the parties. 7. The defendant no. 1 says that the documents which the plaintiffs intent to bring on record are neither directly nor remotely related to the cause of action of this suit. The defendant no.1 says that whether invocation of Bank Guarantee was proper or not is no longer open to be decided as the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court permitted the bank to invoke the Bank Guarantee. The defendant no.1 says that the Learned Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, NCLAT New Delhi and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the wind mill assets were not part of the assets of the borrower/ GNCL as the Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiffs was finalized before commencement of the proceedings whereby the insolvency resolution process had started. 8. The defendant no. 1 says that the plaintiffs are violating the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which is speedy disposal of proceedings but the plaintiffs by filing applications delaying the proceedings of the Suit. 9. The plaintiffs intent to bring the following documents on record: i. Copy of the reply affidavit filed by the Defendant no. 1/SBI in special civil application no. 19229 of 2017. ii. Copy of the letter dated 22.03.2017 issued by GNCL to BSES Ltd. and The National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. informing that the company had filed petition before NCLT, Kolkata for CIRP iii. Copy of the letter dated 24.03.2017 by the then Chairman and Managing Director/ Promoter of GNCL, Mr. 1/SBI in special civil application no. 19229 of 2017. ii. Copy of the letter dated 22.03.2017 issued by GNCL to BSES Ltd. and The National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. informing that the company had filed petition before NCLT, Kolkata for CIRP iii. Copy of the letter dated 24.03.2017 by the then Chairman and Managing Director/ Promoter of GNCL, Mr. Arun Kumar Jagatramka, to the shareholders of GNCL, stating that for the company had filed petition before NCLT, Kolkata for CIRP in consultation with its bankers. iv. Copy of Annual Report of Company, GNCL for the year 2016-2017 issued to BSES Ltd. and The National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Copy of Annual Report of Company, GNCL for the year 2015-2016 issued to BSES Ltd. and The National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. vi. Copy of Scheme of compromise between Arun Kumar Jagatramka (Promoter GNCL) and Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) of GNCL led by the defendant, SBI during the liquidation process of GNCL vii. Copy of the Master Restructuring Agreement 10. The document (i) above is the affidavit-in-reply filed by the plaintiff no. 2 before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in a Special Civil Application No. 19229 of 2017. The said proceeding was initiated by the plaintiff no. 2 against the defendant no.1 and others. The reply which the plaintiff no. 2 intent to bring on record of the instant suit was filed before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court sometimes in the month of January, 2018 and the present suit is filed in the year, 2019. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff no. 2 submitted that the said document was with the Learned Advocate of Gujarat who was dealing with the Special Civil Application. The plaintiff no. 2 has specifically made an averment that the documents were not with the plaintiff no. 2 at the time of filing of the suit but the said statement of the plaintiff no. 2 is not correct. The document is reply to the Special Civil Application filed by the plaintiff no. 2 before the Gujarat High Court but in the applications filed by the plaintiffs have not stated that at the time of filling of the suit, it was with the Learned Counsel who had appeared before the Gujarat High Court. The plaintiffs only during the argument have made out a case that the document was with the Learned Advocate at Gujarat. The plaintiffs only during the argument have made out a case that the document was with the Learned Advocate at Gujarat. The arguments of the plaintiffs are different than the case made out in the application. It is proved that the document was with the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit and the said document is of the plaintiff no.2 only. 11. As regard the document mentioned in paragraph 9(vii), Master Restructuring Agreement, the said Agreement is referred in the order passed by the NCLT, Kolkata Bench in IA (IB) 1001/KB/2020 in CP (IB) 182/KB/2017 dated 18th March, 2021 in which both the plaintiffs were parties as respondents. In paragraph 3.12 of the said order, the Learned Tribunal has recorded the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs herein) which reads as follows: “312. Mr. Chowdhury took us through the order dated 22.08.2017 annexed with the application at page 117. He pointed out that in the meeting held on 05.05.2017, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had decided to sell 87.5 MW assets of the corporate debtor. The transaction of sale was contemplated under the MRA dated 18.9.2014 and the supplemental MRA dated 02.03.2015. He again referred to the order whereby the Adjudicating Authority had allowed the RP to complete the proposed sale transaction initiated by him. Instead of coming forward, the buyers went to the High Court. Today, the situation is that unless the Liquidator sells the windmill assets, the Liquidator cannot proceed, Mr. Chowdhury submitted.” 12. From the submissions of the Counsel for the plaintiffs before the Learned Tribunal, it is established that the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 18th September, 2014, was in possession of the plaintiffs but the plaintiffs have suppressed the said facts in the present application and made out a new case that the documents were not in possession or custody of the plaintiffs. 13. As regard the other documents, the defendant no.1 has not brought any record to establish that the documents were in possession or custody of the plaintiffs. The defendant no.1 has pleaded that the documents are available in the public domain. If the documents were available in the public domain cannot construed that the documents were in possession or custody of the plaintiffs. 14. The plaintiff no. 2 relied upon the judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Delhi 1457 (Bennett Coleman & Co. The defendant no.1 has pleaded that the documents are available in the public domain. If the documents were available in the public domain cannot construed that the documents were in possession or custody of the plaintiffs. 14. The plaintiff no. 2 relied upon the judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Delhi 1457 (Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. –vs- ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. and Others). In the said case, the Delhi High Court held that “Even if the documents available in public domain at the time of filing of the suit, the needs for filing the documents only on account of the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement.” In the present case also the plaintiffs have made out a specific case that after filing of written statement by the defendant no.1 to the amended plaint, the plaintiffs after enquiry came to know about the said documents. 15. In the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan -vs-Vinay Kumar G.B. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “9.4. However, the additional documents can be permitted to be bought on record with the leave of the court as provided in Order 11 Rule 1(4). Order 11 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. 9.5. Order 11 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 11 Rule 1(4) read with Order 11 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 nondisclosure along with plaint. 9.6. 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 11 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 the 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 nondisclosure 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 11 Rule 1(4) and Order 11 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.” 16. In the present case though the plaintiffs have made out a case that the documents were not in possession and custody of the plaintiffs but this Court finds that the contention made by the plaintiffs is not correct with regard to the document mentioned in para 9 (i) and 9 (vii) and is contrary to the record. The documents mentioned in paragraphs 9(i) and 9(vii) i.e. (i) Copy of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the defendant no. The documents mentioned in paragraphs 9(i) and 9(vii) i.e. (i) Copy of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the defendant no. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 19229 of 2017 and (vii) Copy of the Master Restructuring Agreement were in possession of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have not made out any sufficient cause for not filing of the said documents at the time of filing of the documents along with the plaint, thus the plaintiffs are not permitted to disclose the documents mentioned in paragraphs 9 (i) and (vii) above. 17. As regard to the documents mentioned in paragraphs 9 (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) above were not in possession of the plaintiffs and only after filing of written statement to the amended plaint, the plaintiffs came to know about the said documents, accordingly, the plaintiffs are allowed to disclose the documents mention in paragraphs 9 (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) above. 18. In view of the above, G.A. No. 9 of 2023 and GA-COM 11 of 2023 are accordingly disposed of.