Dismissed¶9

M/S Alpro Industires and Ors. v. Ms/ Indo Alusys Industries Ltd.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2025CM(M)/2332/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC, CM(M) 2332/2025, decided 02.12.2025 by Justice Girish Kathpalia. Defendants' challenge to dismissal of Order VIII Rule 1A CPC application for late production of additional payment documents in money recovery suit (plaintiff Indo Alusys Industries Ltd; defendants Alpro Industries & Others) fails; seven-year unexplained delay, vague application, possession admitted, prejudice to plaintiff; petition dismissed as frivolous with Rs. 10,000/- costs to DHCLSC. Keywords: Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, delayed production of documents, additional documents, frivolous petition, costs.

What did the court decide?

Having heard only the senior counsel for petitioners, the Court did not find it a fit case to even issue notice. ¶1

M/S Alpro Industires and Ors. Vs Ms/ Indo Alusys Industries Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dated 18.07.2024 dismissing the petitioners'/defendants' application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC to place additional documents on record is sustainable.

¶1

Court's answer

Having heard only the senior counsel for petitioners, the Court did not find it a fit case to even issue notice.

¶1

Ratio / Principle

The application leading to the impugned order was completely silent on the nature and relevance of the subject documents; not a word mentioned as to what the documents sought to be filed are.

¶5

Key takeaways

There was no explanation in the application for why the documents were not filed at the appropriate stage; the office-shifting plea was neither mentioned in the application nor raised before the trial court, and the Court held it completely unbelievable that shifting of office would have taken seven years causing failure to file the documents.ratio¶6
It was nobody's case that the subject documents were not in power and possession of the petitioners/defendants.ratio¶7
Given the stage of the suit proceedings, taking the subject documents on record would prejudice the respondent/plaintiff, who never had an opportunity to deal with them at an appropriate stage.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CM(M) 2332/2025 (Delhi High Court, Justice GIRISH KATHPALIA, oral order dated 02.12.2025): Petitioners/defendants challenged the trial court's order dated 18.07.2024 dismissing their application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC to place additional documents on record during the defendants'-evidence stage of a money recovery suit (filed May 2016; issues framed 11.10.2017; plaintiff's evidence concluded 05.06.2023). Upholding the dismissal, the Court found the four-paragraph application wholly silent on the nature and relevance of the documents and on why they were not produced at the appropriate stage; the belated plea of office-shifting was not stated in the application nor argued below, and a seven-year shift was deemed unbelievable; the documents were admittedly in the defendants' possession; and admitting them then would prejudice the plaintiff. The impugned order was upheld, the petition termed totally frivolous, and dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to DHCLSC within one week; copy of the order sent to the trial court.

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 02.12.2025

¶4

- CM(M) 2332/2025, CM APPL. 75607/2025, CM APPL. 75608/2025 & CM APPL. 75606/2025

¶5

M/S ALPRO INDUSTIRES AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. I. M. Quddusi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kanti Tiwari, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

M/S INDO ALUSYS INDUSTRIES LTD .....Respondent

¶9

Through: None.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶12

Petitioners/defendants have assailed order dated 18.07.2024 of the learned trial court, whereby their application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC was dismissed. Having heard learned senior counsel for petitioners, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice.

¶13

Broadly speaking, the respondent/plaintiff filed a money recovery suit in the month of May 2016 in which, after filing of Written Statement in the month of June 2017, issues were framed by the trial court on 11.10.2017. The respondent/plaintiff concluded its evidence on 05.06.2023 and the suit

¶14

CM(M) 2332/2025

¶15

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶16

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.12.02 14:18:30 -08'00'

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.12.2025 14:23:15

¶19

was posted for recording evidence of the petitioners/defendants. After taking an adjournment, the petitioners/defendants filed an application seeking to place on record certain additional documents. After hearing both sides, the learned trial court dismissed the said application by way of detailed order, impugned in the present proceedings.

¶20

In the impugned order, the learned trial court observed that there was no explanation advanced from the side of the petitioners/defendants to explain the delay of almost seven years in seeking to place on record the subject documents; and that the petitioners/defendants had failed to disclose as to whether the subject documents were earlier not in their knowledge or could not be produced at appropriate stage despite due diligence.

¶21

In the above backdrop, learned senior counsel for petitioners/defendants contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the subject documents are essential in order to establish that the petitioners/defendants have already paid the entire amount claimed in the suit. Further, learned senior counsel contends that on account of shifting of office of the defendants, the subject documents could not be filed in time.

¶22

In the impugned order itself, the learned trial court has extracted the entire application, which led to the impugned order. The application, running into four paragraphs is completely silent on the nature and relevance of the subject documents. The application vaguely mentions that while filing

Page 2 of 4 pages

CM(M) 2332/2025

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.12.2025 14:23:15

¶28

the Written Statement, the subject documents could not be filed. Not a word has been mentioned as to what the subject documents, which the petitioners/defendants want to file, are.

¶29

Further, there is absolutely no whisper in the application as to why the subject documents were not filed at appropriate stage. Even the plea taken today that due to shifting of office of the defendants, the documents could not be filed in time has not been mentioned in the application. Even before the learned trial court during arguments, no such ground was raised. Further, there is not even a whiff disclosing as to when the office of the defendants was shifted. It is completely unbelievable that shifting of the office would have taken seven years, which led to failure in filing the said documents.

¶30

It is also nobody’s case that the subject documents were not in power and possession of the petitioners/defendants.

¶31

Keeping in mind the stage of the suit proceedings, taking the subject documents on record would also prejudice the case of the respondent/plaintiff as the plaintiff never had an opportunity to deal with the subject documents at appropriate stage.

¶32

I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld. The petition is not just devoid of merits but is also totally frivolous. Therefore, the petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with

¶33

CM(M) 2332/2025

¶34

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

¶37

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.12.2025 14:23:15

¶38

DHCLSC within one week.

¶39

Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information.

¶40

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a GIRISH fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cac ca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5 KATHPALIA d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796 5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.12.02 14:17:50 -08'00'

¶41

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶42

DECEMBER 02, 2025/ dr

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.12.2025 14:23:15

¶44

CM(M) 2332/2025

¶45

Page 4 of 4 pages

M/S Alpro Industires and Ors. v. Ms/ Indo Alusys Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Alpro Industires and Ors. v. Ms/ Indo Alusys Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Yadav Vs Anuradha Yadav

Divya Ahuja Vs Pranav Ahuja

Pooja Saini Sharma Vs Sh Varun Sharma

Shaurya Garg Vs Shailesh Mehta

Katar Singh and Anr. Vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs Mamta Garg

Manju Mehra & Anr. Vs Dev Pratap Seonie (Since Deceased) through Lrs. and Ors.

Manvi Hora Vs Abhinav Batra

Shaurya Garg Vs Shailesh Mehta

Ram Prakash Arora Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Amit Sehgal Vs Rajesh Sandhyana

Krishna Aggarwal Vs Jaipal Singh

Sh. Pradeep & Ors. Vs Sh. Ravinder Dagar & Anr.

Syed Nadeem Abbas @ Nadeem Zaidi Vs Ramesh Kumar & Anr.