The Delhi High Court has allowed Punjab National Bank to summon a record keeper and produce key interest-rate documents at the stage of its evidence in a Rs 89 lakh commercial suit, even though it did not file these documents with its written statement. It held that, in the interests of justice, a short procedural delay by a public sector bank should not shut out material evidence.
A party can summon a witness under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC to produce documents, even if the documents were not filed earlier with the pleadings, and the Court can take them on record. Under Order XI of the CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the test for permitting late filing is “reasonable cause”, which is less strict than “sufficient cause”. Procedural timelines do not strip the court of its discretion to admit material documents where the other side can still test them and suffers no serious prejudice. A High Court under Article 227 does not sit in appeal over the Trial Court’s order unless there is perversity or patent illegality.
Quattro Well Pvt. Ltd. sued PNB in 2024 to recover Rs 89,32,221 with 12% interest, saying that the bank charged a higher rate of interest than agreed on its loan between 2018 and 2021. PNB denied this, saying that the rate changed because the company’s credit rating changed. Its written statement was filed in November 2024 without a list of documents, and the Trial Court allowed it with Rs 5,000 costs and gave it 30 days to file documents, which it did not do. In September 2025, when the case was at the defendant’s evidence stage, PNB applied under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC to summon a record keeper from its Mid Corporate Centre with the interest rate “card rate” table, the company’s credit rating details and documents about a Rs 31 lakh deduction. It explained that the loan was sanctioned from a Central Loan Processing Centre and not the Nehru Place branch, which was served in the case. The Trial Court allowed it, and the company challenged this in the High Court under Article 227. Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed the petition. He held that the documents were relevant and material, and that the witness was already named in the list filed in July 2025, so there was no surprise. Relying on Ashok Sharma v. Ram Adhar Sharma, he said that documents brought by a witness summoned under Order XVI can be taken on record even if the copies were not filed earlier. The Sudhir Kumar ruling was distinguished because the application here was filed within two months of the witness list. The test of “reasonable cause” under Order XI of the Commercial Courts Act is less rigorous than “sufficient cause”, and public sector banks take time to requisition files. The company can still test the documents, so there was no grave prejudice. The Kalva Komuraiah ruling of another High Court is only persuasive, and the court said that its Article 227 jurisdiction cannot be used as an appeal. The stay of 10 October 2025 was vacated.
Citation: Quattro Well Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, CM(M) 1968/2025 (with CM APPL. 63547/2025 and CM APPL. 63549/2025), Delhi High Court (Justice Ajay Digpaul), decided on 15.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:9196
Leave a Reply