Court Rejects Belated Plea to File Additional Documents in Commercial Suit

M/S. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (LMT) had entered into an IT Professional Services Agreement with Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) on 19th February 2013 to develop and manage a mobile app. After the app was launched and then taken down at SCB's instruction, LMT alleged losses under a revenue sharing clause and filed Civil Suit No.1705 of 2015 before the Delhi High Court, claiming Rs. 4,46,50,000 with 18% interest. The suit was renumbered as CS(Comm.) 169 of 2018 under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Issues were framed in 2016 and examination of LMT's first witness (PW-1) was completed in May 2023. LMT then filed IA No. 24359 of 2023 seeking to place additional documents on record — emails, vendor agreements, and backend server data — and to recall PW-1. The Delhi High Court's Single Judge rejected this application in February 2025, finding no reasonable cause for the delay and holding that allowing it would be contrary to the objectives of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. LMT appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that even applying the lower 'reasonable cause' standard (rather than 'sufficient cause'), LMT showed no justification for the delay. The Court emphasised that all documents sought were already in LMT's possession at the time of filing the plaint and during the earlier additional evidence application. It found that allowing a second round of additional documents would endorse a piecemeal approach incompatible with the CCA's mandate for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. The Court also rejected LMT's argument that CCA's strict procedures did not apply to its pending suit, holding that Section 15 CCA expressly applies to transferred pending suits. The suit was directed to be decided as expeditiously as possible.

LMT and SCB entered into an IT Professional Services Agreement in February 2013 for developing a mobile app, which was later taken down by SCB. LMT claimed losses under a revenue sharing clause and filed a civil suit in 2015 before the Delhi High Court seeking Rs. 4,46,50,000. After the suit was renumbered as a commercial suit in 2018 and PW-1's evidence was completed in May 2023, LMT filed an application seeking to place additional documents on record and recall PW-1.

The Supreme Court dismissed LMT's appeal and agreed entirely with the Delhi High Court's rejection of the application to file additional documents. It held that no reasonable cause was made out for the delay, that all documents were already in LMT's possession, and that allowing a second round of additional documents would endorse a piecemeal approach contrary to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court directed that the suit be decided as expeditiously as possible.

This ruling makes clear that parties in commercial suits cannot keep adding documents in a piecemeal manner after evidence has begun; they must produce all relevant documents upfront or within the strict timelines set by the Commercial Courts Act. For businesses, this means thorough preparation before filing suits is essential. The judgment reinforces India's commitment to speedy resolution of commercial disputes to improve the ease of doing business.