Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

Order Date: 06 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Plaintiff: M/s Regent Energy Limited (applicant) filed a civil suit (No. 27 of 2016) seeking recovery of Rs 1,82,11,169 comprising a principal amount of Rs 1,32,00,250 and damages of Rs 50,10,619 arising from loss during the indemnity period of a fire‑loss business interruption insurance policy.
  • Defendant: The New India Assurance Company Limited (non‑applicant) along with another party.
  • The plaintiff had already received a partial settlement of Rs 78,00,692 from the defendant and claimed the remaining amount, arguing that the indemnity period should be 261 days (12 Feb 2013 to 31 Oct 2013) whereas the insurer accepted only 91 days (13 Feb 2013 to 14 May 2013).
  • The plaintiff sought leave under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC to place on record ten categories of additional documents, including:

1. Correspondence with the surveyor and production data (01‑Apr‑2011 to 31‑Oct‑2012);

2. Joint Meter Reading Reports and energy bills (Apr 2011‑Oct 2013);

3. Data to compute average transmission losses;

4. Month‑wise DG set generation (2011‑2013);

5. Water‑flow discharge (2011‑2013);

6. Power Purchase Agreement between HPSEBL and the plaintiff;

7. Revised claim form;

8. Invoices and payments for energy generated from the plaintiff’s hydel project (Feb‑Oct 2013);

9. Bank statements showing payments received from HPSEB (Feb 2012‑Oct 2013);

10. Documents supporting a claim of Rs 24,85,857 for additional expenditure to minimise loss.

  • The plaintiff argued the file containing these documents was lost and only recently retrieved; the defendants contended the documents were within the plaintiff’s knowledge and possession earlier and that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to produce them.
  • Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 23 Feb 2022; evidence of the defendants closed on 30 Dec 2024. The application was filed after a partial hearing on 16 Jun 2025.

Final Outcome

  • The Court examined Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, which mandates that a plaintiff must produce documents at the time of filing the plaint, and any later production requires the Court’s discretionary leave, which must be exercised judiciously.
  • Citing Supreme Court judgments in Sugandhi (2020) 10 SCC 706 and Bagai (2013) 14 SCC 1, the Court held that the plaintiff had not shown a “good cause” for the belated production; the documents were already in the plaintiff’s possession and their late introduction would amount to a de novo trial and prejudice the defendants.
  • The Court concluded that permitting the application would be an abuse of process, contrary to the principles of timely justice and fair procedure.
  • Consequently, the application for leave to produce additional documents was dismissed.

Topics: Insurance Claim, Procedural Law