GGR Housing India Private Limited Vs Navaratna Estates (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Conclusion: In a commercial suit regarding specific performance, High Court had allowed a Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the Special Judge for Commercial Disputes that had rejected the plaintiffs’ application to file additional documents. The Court held that the documents (including sale deeds and TDS payment details) were necessary to adjudicate the controversy regarding the actual sale consideration paid and the corresponding tax deducted at source under Section 194(1A).
Held: Assessee had filed a Commercial Original Suit (COS) for specific performance of an oral agreement regarding the sale of land. An Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.271 of 2025) was filed under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, seeking leave to file a list of 133 documents, which included certified copies of sale deeds, Gram Panchayat resolutions, and payment challans. Respondents objected to the filing of these documents, arguing that they were public documents available prior to the institution of the suit and should have been disclosed with the original plaint as per the strict provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Special Judge had rejected the application, agreeing with the respondents that the documents could have been obtained earlier with reasonable effort and were therefore within the “power, possession, control or custody” of the petitioners at the time of filing the plaint. The Division Bench allowed the revision, distinguishing between actual possession and the mere ability to obtain documents. The Court held that the expression “power, possession, control or custody” under Order XI Rule 1 refers to actual possession and not constructive possession or the mere availability of documents in the public domain. The Court observed that the necessity for filing the certified copies of the sale deeds arose specifically due to the stand taken by the defendants in their written statement. The defendants had disputed the actual sale consideration paid, arguing that the TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) paid under Section 194(1A) of the Income Tax Act indicated a higher consideration than pleaded by the plaintiffs. To rebut this contention and prove the correct sale consideration, the plaintiffs were required to produce the registered sale deeds. The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B and Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar, reiterating that procedural law was the handmaid of justice and must be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. It held that the documents were relevant for the effective adjudication of the controversy regarding the total sale consideration paid and the corresponding TDS deducted. The Court further clarified that if the documents were filed in response to a case set up by the defendant, the restrictions under Order XI Rule 1(1) and (5) would not apply. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 and directed the Special Judge to take the documents on record. The Court noted that objections regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence (certified copies) under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act could be raised by the respondents and decided at the appropriate stage of the trial.
