Even a snail may question speed at which trial is proceeding: SC on suit filed in 2015

New Delhi: Even a snail may question the speed at which the trial is proceeding, the Supreme Court said on Thursday while wondering that in a suit filed in 2015, the plaintiff's evidence was ongoing as of 2026.

The apex court noted that the suit originally initiated in May 2015 was renumbered and registered as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in January 2018.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a private firm challenging a February 2025 order of the Delhi High Court.


The high court had rejected the firm's application seeking to bring on record additional documents and recall a witness for examination in the pending suit filed before the high court.

"The suit in question was filed in 2015. As of 2026, plaintiff's evidence is ongoing. We may say that even a snail may question the speed at which this trial is proceeding," the top court said, while dismissing the appeal against the high court order.

The apex court rejected the arguments advanced by the firm that relevance of the documents sought to be produced must be considered.

It noted that documents that were sought to be produced were in the possession of the firm, both at the time of filing the plaint and the subsequent additional evidence.

"If the present application is allowed, what this court would be essentially doing is condoning a piecemeal approach to the proceedings of a commercial suit the procedure for which has entirely been conceived for promoting the ease of business and recognising the need for expediency in resolving high stakes disputes," the bench said.

It observed that evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and rigours of the statute.

The bench also noted that one round of additional evidence was already allowed to be produced and placed on record earlier.

It said these documents were in the possession of the firm and ought to have been produced at the first instance if not later, during the time when for the first time a similar application seeking to place on record additional documents was filed.

The bench noted that on January 30, 2018, the appellant's first application for placing on record the additional documents stood allowed and it was only in November 2023 that a subsequent application taking the very same plea was filed.

While dismissing the appeal, the bench directed that the suit be decided as expeditiously as possible.