Case Details

Spl. Civil Suit 16/2017 Order Exh.21 Page 1 of 1 O R D E R Below exhibit 21 (Delivered on this the 19th day of the month of January of the year 2018.) 1. The defendants have objected to this application on the ground that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation and that the plaintiff is not entitled, by the proposed amendment, to regularize the plaint which is faulty. 2. I have perused the application, the reply, the records and considered the arguments advanced by ld. Adv. Shri A. Arsekar on behalf of the plaintiffs and ld. Adv. Shri V. Alvenkar on behalf of the defendants. 3. A perusal of the written statement of the defendants brings out that it is case of the defendants that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 08.05.2013. Therefore, whether the suit and the pleadings sought to be incorporated by the proposed amendment are time barred is an issue which will have to be decided on merits of the case. 4. The proposed amendment at para (i), (ii), (v) and (viii) are to satisfy the requirements of pleadings under the Commercial Courts Act 2015, while the proposed amendment at para (iii) is to correct a typographical error and the proposed amendments at paras (iv) and (vi) are consequent to the calculation of interest. 5. Hence, application is hereby granted. Plaintiffs to carry out the amendment within a period of two weeks. Margao. Dated:19.01.2018. ( Edgar P. Fernandes ) District Judge-1, South Goa, Margao. MF/-

CNR NO.GASG01-000789-2017 Exh.30 Special Civil Suit (com.)no.16/2017 page 1 of 1 O R D E R (below exhibit 30) (Delivered on this the 25th day of the month of June of the year 2018). 1. Perused this application, the reply of the plaintiff, the application of the plaintiffs at Exh.34, the records and have considered the arguments advanced by Ld. Adv. Shri T. Jacques on behalf of the defendants and Ld. Adv. Shri Arsekar on behalf of the plaintiff. 2. It is a matter of record that the plaintiff has subsequently amended the plaint and has produced a fresh list of documents, as required under the Commercial Courts Act, which contained also documents originally relied upon. 3. By the application at Exh.34, the plaintiff has submitted that the subsequent list of the documents be considered and earlier list be treated as withdrawn. 4. It is required to be noted that at the time of filing the suit, it was a mere suit for recovery of money under Order VII Rule 2 CPC but was registered as a commercial suit in view of its valuation and pursuant thereto the plaintiff has carried out the said amendments. In the circumstances, I am unable to grant this application. 5. Hence the application is hereby dismissed. The additional list of documents shall be considered to be the list of documents of the plaintiff in terms of Order XV Rule 2 CPC, as duly amended under the Commercial Courts Act. Margao Dated:25.06.2018. ( Edgar P. Fernandes ) District Judge-1 South Goa, Cg/- Margao.

CNR NO.GASG01-000789-2017 Exh.37 Special Civil Suit (commercial) no.16/2017 page 1 of 3 O R D E R (below exhibit 37) (Delivered on this the 8th day of the month of August of the year 2018). 1. Perused this application, the reply filed by the plaintiff, the records and heard Ld. Adv. Ms. T. Xavier on behalf of the defendants and Ld. Adv. Shri Arsekar on behalf of the plaintiff. 2. The crux of the objections of the plaintiff is that the defendants were in possession of the documents mentioned in the application and no reason has been stated for not producing them earlier. It is further the contention of the plaintiff that the documents intended to be produced are private documents, some of which are not material for arriving at judicious decision. 3. Order 11 Rule 10 CPC, as duly amended by the Commercial Courts Act, lays down that the defendant shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the defendant's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed alongwith the written statement or counterclaim, save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the defendant establishing reasonable CNR NO.GASG01-000789-2017 Exh.37 Special Civil Suit (commercial) no.16/2017 page 2 of 3 cause for non-disclosure alongwith the written statement or counterclaim. 4. Order 11 Rule 7 of the CPC requires the defendant to include in its list of documents, the documents relating to the matter in question in the proceedings whether the same are in support of or adverse to the defendant's defence and Rule 12 lays down that the duty to disclose documents, which have come to the notice of a party, shall continue till disposal of the suit. 5. The defendants have stated in this application as well as in the list of documents filed alongwith this application that some of the documents sought to be produced by this application were in the custody of the GIDC. 6. It is required to be noted that the defendants have not furnished copies of the documents at Sr. nos.11 to 14, 17 and 26 either to the Court or to the advocate for the defendants. However, the advocate for the defendants has today filed an application undertaking to hand over copies of the same to the plaintiff before the next date of hearing. 7. Hence application is hereby granted. Margao Dated:08.08.2018 ( Edgar P. Fernandes ) District Judge-1 CNR NO.GASG01-000789-2017 Exh.37 Special Civil Suit (commercial) no.16/2017 page 3 of 3 South Goa, Cg/- Margao.