JUDGMENT : This petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant by challenging the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in IA No.30/2025 in CS No.73/2021 for having allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for production of documents under order 7 Rule 14 (2)of CPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent at length. 3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was the defendant in the Commercial Suit filed by the respondent in CS No.73/21, for realisation of money on the ground he said to be a consultant of the the respondent company are entitled for 4% of the project cost. Accordingly, the Suit came to be filed where the defendant was notified later he has not appeared and he was placed ex parte. Thereafter, he has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte and also to condone the delay in filing the application and filing the written statement. All the three IAs were dismissed by the commercial Court. Subsequently the petitioner approached this Court by challenging the order. However the High Court allowed the application for setting aside the ex parte. However, denied the request of filing of the written statement as it is beyond 120 days. The petitioner also said to be approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein he suffered order that the petitioner was not able to file the written statement. Subsequently, the respondent said to be filed a proof affidavit along with proof affidavit he filed an application IA 30/25 under Order 7 Rule 14(2) of CPC along with 24 documents. Where the petitioner raised an objection to receive the documents. Ultimately the trial court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 16.07.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the very application filed by the plaintiff under order 7 Rule 14 (2) is not maintainable, he has quoted wrong provision. Ultimately the trial court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 16.07.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the very application filed by the plaintiff under order 7 Rule 14 (2) is not maintainable, he has quoted wrong provision. The application filed under order 11 Rule 4 & 5 of CPC and he has to show sufficient cause for non production of those documents along with the plaint even on perusal of the documents produced by him along with the plaintiff only 4 documents but all of a sudden he has produced 24 documents after four years of filing the suit which is impermissible under the order 11 Rule 1 of CPC and order 7 Rule 14 is not applicable to the commercial suit as per Section 16 of the Commercial Court Act and he also contended that the plaintiff not made sufficient cause for non production of the documents which is not in his power, control and possession. Therefore allowing the documents is not correct. It is also brought to the notice that the very respondent counsel appeared on behalf of the company for filing the writ petition, in favour of the company where an order also obtained in the writ petition on behalf of the company and those documents are within the custody of the very plaintiff which was not produced along with this Suit and other documents especially Ext.P11 to 24 are the proceedings of the same commercial court which is not relevant documents. The Document No.1 to 9 are within the custody and control of the plaintiff and insists prior to the filing of the suit, at the same was not produced therefore these documents shall not be permitted to produce. Without leave of the Court and leave should be sought within 30 days from the filing of suit is not permissible after four years of filing of suit. Therefore the order under challenge is to be set aside and prayed for allowing the petition. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the hon’ble supreme Court reported in 2021 KHC online 6463 in the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B. 6. Therefore the order under challenge is to be set aside and prayed for allowing the petition. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the hon’ble supreme Court reported in 2021 KHC online 6463 in the case of Sudhir Kumar @ S.Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff supported the order of the court below and contended that the petitioner was placed ex parte and he was served with summons and notice was duly served on them. All these documents Nos.11 to 24 are the court proceeding documents which were subsequent to the filing of the suit. The 10th document is the sale deed to show the petitioner obtained the permission of the commercial court and sold the property for 80 Crores. Therefore, in order to show the cost of the project the plaintiff required this document to prove but the document is with the custody of the defendant which is not in the power and control of the plaintiff to produce the same along with the suit. The further contention is that the resolution of the company is not within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Subsequently he came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and obtained the documents under the Right to Information Act. Therefore, these documents are not within the possession, control & power of the plaintiff to produce the same at the time of filing the Suit. Therefore, it was obtained from the concerned authorities and filed the documents before the Court. It is also contended that even after the production of documents the validity of the documents or genuineness of documents shall not be looked into by the Court at the time of receiving the documents and it can be proved subject to the objection raised by the petitioner/defendant at the time of cross examination. Though he was permitted to cross examine the plaintiff/defendant. Such being the case, mere production of documents is not barred as it is not within the control or power of the plaintiff to show he was not produced at the time of suit. Therefore, the order under challenge does not call for any interference. It is also contended that mere quoting of wrong as provision as Order 7 Rule 14 (2) of CPC, the reliefs cannot be allowed. Therefore, the order under challenge does not call for any interference. It is also contended that mere quoting of wrong as provision as Order 7 Rule 14 (2) of CPC, the reliefs cannot be allowed. But he has also invoked provision of CPC 151 of CPC an inherent power of the Court to allow the application, receive the documents and even the citation relied by the counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the application under Order 11 Rule 1 (4) of CPC instead of Order 7 Rule 14 (2) of CPC. Therefore, merely quoting the wrong provision the reliefs shall not be denied. Hence prayed for dismissing the petition. 7. During the course of argument, he has stated that the documents Sl.Nos.13 to 14 are the proceedings of the same commercial court. Therefore, it may not be necessary or relevant for proving his case. 8. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. 9. The points that arose for consideration are as follows. i. The learned counsel for the respondent also took the contention that the very petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as per Section 8 of the Commercial Court Act? ii. Whether the petition is not maintainable for challenging the order under impugned as contended by the respondent counsel? iii. Whether the documents were within the custody, power, control of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit as contended by the plaintiff in IA? 10. Having considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein the counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court came across the similar situation wherein the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC when the SLP Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the said application as Order 11 Rule 1(4) of CPC. Therefore, mere quoting of a wrong provision, the relief cannot be denied. Of course, the order 11 Rule 1 is meant especially for commercial court Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the above suit as this, a separate provision has to be invoked for the purpose of filing the documents in a commercial suit. Therefore, mere quoting of a wrong provision, the relief cannot be denied. Of course, the order 11 Rule 1 is meant especially for commercial court Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the above suit as this, a separate provision has to be invoked for the purpose of filing the documents in a commercial suit. However the respondent counsel fairly admits that a wrong provision has been quoted but under 151 CPC also included by him where the court can invoke the inherent power for granting any relief in favour of the either parties and in the very judgment relied by the petitioner counsel Sudhir Kumar Vs. Vinay Kumar Case, where a similar situation where the document produced by the defendant has been allowed by the commercial court, whereas the document produced by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Subsequently, the matter was taken up before the High Court of Delhi thereafter the matter went to Supreme Court. Such being the case it cannot be said the order under challenge is not maintainable or barred under Section 8 of the Commercial Suits Act for entertaining any petition by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . Therefore, the contention of the petitioner counsel is that the petition is not maintainable cannot be acceptable. 11. However, quoting a wrong provision either under order 7 Rule 14 (4 or 5) of CPC also cannot be said, the relief should be denied merely quoting a wrong provision by the Advocate in the Suit. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be acceptable. 12. In respect of the document produced by the defendant the respondent plaintiff before the Court wherein the document No.1 which is additional document sought to be produced there is a resolution of the petitioner company held on 04.02.2020. The said document is a company document where the petitioner is having no power, possession or control over the document. It is the document of the company where he has to obtain from the Registrar of companies for the purpose of production of documents in Court. Therefore, it cannot be said this document No.1 within the custody and possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing the Suit. Though the resolution was 04.02.2020 the suit was filed in 2021 but this document is not within the custody of the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said this document No.1 within the custody and possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing the Suit. Though the resolution was 04.02.2020 the suit was filed in 2021 but this document is not within the custody of the plaintiff. As far as the document No.2 to 9 are the documents obtained by the respondent plaintiff by filing application under the RTI act from the public authority where the respondent said to be company said to be filed writ petition for the purpose of getting permission of the project or plan from the authorities where the counsel for the respondent might have appeared in those petitions but the respondent is not party in the said writ petitions to show these documents were within the custody of the respondent plaintiff. On the other hand these are all documents pertain to the petitioner company who has filed the petition before the concerned authorities for getting sanction or plain etc. and which was not granted at that time, later a writ petition was filed and obtained order from the High Court and thereafter the permission were obtained. Therefore these documents are all though pertain to the company but it is not within the custody and possession of the respondent plaintiff. The documents are obtained under the RTI Act and the respondent is not a party to the writ petition even though he might have received the copy in other modes. Therefore, it cannot be said it is in custody, power and control over the documents. Therefore these documents permitted to produce and the genuineness of the document can be controverted during the cross examination or marking the document. It is subject to the always admissibility in evidence. 13. As regard to the document No.10 is certified copy of the sale deed where during the pendency of the commercial suit the petitioner said to be obtained the order of the court and sold the property. This is also a subsequent document after filing of the suit. Document Nos.11 & 12, and the writ petition copies are not within the custody of the respondent plaintiff to file as a suit document. However, the document No.13 to 24 are the documents where a notice was served on the defendant a suit registered the tapal registered etc. This is also a subsequent document after filing of the suit. Document Nos.11 & 12, and the writ petition copies are not within the custody of the respondent plaintiff to file as a suit document. However, the document No.13 to 24 are the documents where a notice was served on the defendant a suit registered the tapal registered etc. and the certified copy of the application filed by the petitioner objection filed by the respondent and the matter went up to High Court these are all the part of the court records that cannot be considered as Suit documents for the plaintiff to prove his case. These documents are the proceedings of the commercial court. Therefore, these documents are not necessary to produce as suit documents by the plaintiff in order to prove his contention. These documents have nothing to do with proving the case against the defendant. Of course these documents are only to show in spite of serving the summons the defendant not appeared before the court and subsequently he has filed application for setting aside the ex parte and it was dismissed a review petition also filed which also dismissed. Thereafter he approached the High Court that was also partly allowed. Thereafter the petitioner went to Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the contention and not permitted to file the written statement beyond 120 days. Therefore these are all part of the proceedings of the commercial court and it cannot be said to be the suit document for the plaintiff to prove his case. Therefore the documents No. 13 to 24 should not be allowed by the trial court. Even considering the affidavit as well as the order passed by the trial court I am of the view that the mere production or receiving of the documents at a little belated stage that cannot be a ground for stating that these documents are within power, possession and control over the plaintiff. But these are all not the documents of the plaintiff but it is obtained under the RTI Act. Therefore, I am of the view that the order under challenge calls for any interference partly instead of allowing the entire document, the trial court ought to have allowed upto only production of 12 documents instead of 24 documents. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Therefore, I am of the view that the order under challenge calls for any interference partly instead of allowing the entire document, the trial court ought to have allowed upto only production of 12 documents instead of 24 documents. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. The order under challenge is modified and allowing the petitioner respondent plaintiff to produce 12 documents Sl.No.1 to 12 subject to the proof and relevancy in the evidence and rejected for receiving documents No.13 to 24 as irrelevant documents which are the court records.