Gujarat High Court
Jankilal Jaggannath Shah vs Dahod Nagar Seva Sadan on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10023 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
JANKILAL JAGGANNATH SHAH & ANR.
Versus
DAHOD NAGAR SEVA SADAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR. DHAVAL U. TRIVEDI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Dhaval U. Trivedi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.3, 4, 5, 8 and 9. Considering the issue germane in the matter, the presence of the other parties is not required.
2. The present application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Petition and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 22.04.2025 Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined passed below Ex. 331 by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dahod in Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 2011 and be further pleased to allow the prayers as sought in the Application at Ex. 331;
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in interest of Justice;
C. Award Costs."
3. Learned Advocate Mr.Manan K. Paneri would submit that the petitioners herein are the original plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 2011, filed against the respondents herein, pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dahod, wherein the impugned application came to be filed by the petitioners below Exhibit 331 for issuance of witness summons to respondent No. 4-defendant No. 4 for production of documents and his examination.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Paneri would further state that after hearing the parties, the Trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 22nd April 2025, rejected the application, which is challenged in the present application. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Paneri would submit that the Trial Court has erred in observing that respondent No. 4/defendant Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined No. 4 herein could not have been called upon by the plaintiffs as witness, that too for the production of documents. 5.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Paneri would further submit that as per Order 16 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), the Court has all power to examine any person, including a party to the suit, thereby, there is no express bar under the CPC, which prohibits any party to the suit cannot be called by the other party as his witness.
5.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Paneri would further submit that in the past, the Chief Officer of respondent No. 1-Nagar Palika was called as a witness in an application filed below Exhibit 295 by the petitioners-plaintiffs, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 14.11.2024, thereby, the Chief Officer of respondent No. 1 was examined and has also submitted documents.
5.3. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Paneri would request this Court to allow the present application.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT NOS.3, 4, 5, 8 and 9
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi would submit that as such, there is no error committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application, inasmuch as the tenor of the impugned application would suggest that the plaintiffs wanted to examine defendant No. 4 and were not asking for mere production of documents which are part of government records, which is not permissible in law.
6.1. learned AGP, Mr. Trivedi, would further submit that it is true that Order 16 Rule 14 of the CPC permits the Court to examine any person, including witnesses; however, such power is to be exercised by the Court and not by the party concerned. At best, the documents, which are part of government records, sought by the application, can be produced by the witness concerned, and to that extent only, so far as production of documents is concerned, the examination of such witness be confined.
Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined 6.2. learned AGP, Mr. Trivedi, would submit that as the impugned application was seeking a wider prayer than what is permissible in law, such misconceived application requires to be rejected, which was correctly rejected by the Trial Court. 6.3. Making the above submission, learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi would request this Court not to entertain the present application.
7. Heard learned advocate Mr.Manan K. Paneri for the petitioners and learned AGP, Mr.Dhaval U. Trivedi for respondent no. No.3, 4, 5, 8 and 9.
8. No other and further submissions are made. POINT FOR DETERMIANTION
9. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Trial Court was completely justified in rejecting the application, thereby, not issuing any witness summons to defendant No. 4, who was called upon to produce certain documents, which are enumerated in the impugned application.
ANALYSIS Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined
10. It remains undisputed, and as stated by the plaintiffs in the impugned application, that in the past, the Trial Court has permitted the plaintiffs to call upon defendant No. 1 by examining its Chief Officer through witness summons, and documents were allowed to be produced on record.
11. It further appears that there are certain documents, which were called upon by the plaintiffs from the defendants that have not been produced at any given point of time, and to place those documents, which are government records in relation to the town planning scheme, sought to be produced on record, the impugned application came to be filed by the plaintiffs under Order 16 of the CPC.
12. It is true that defendant No. 4, from whom such documents were called upon, cannot be forced to depose at the instance of the plaintiffs, as whenever the term of examination or taking any oral evidence of the defendants comes, at that stage, it would be for the defendants to take a call as to whether any oral examination of its officer is required or not. Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined
13. Nonetheless, when the documents, which are sought for, are government records and available with defendant No. 4, to the extent of the production of such documents, the prayer of the petitioners-plaintiffs could have been considered by the Trial Court.
14. As recorded hereinabove, in the past, such an exercise was already undertaken by the Trial Court, whereby it allowed an application for witness summons of the plaintiffs calling upon the Chief Officer of defendant No. 1.
15. Further, there is no bar under the CPC, which disentitles any party to call upon opponents in the suit to produce documents and to that extent, to be examined. The plaintiffs could have sought for such production of documents while exercising the remedy available under Order 11 of the CPC.
16. Be that as it may, according to my view, the Trial Court is not completely correct in its view that defendant No. 4 cannot be summoned for the production of documents, which Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined are sought for in the impugned application, which are enumerated at item nos. 1 to 25 of the impugned application.
17. To that extent, the order suffers from illegality and irregularity, and the Trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction in favor of the plaintiffs, thereby, an error of law is committed, which is required to be corrected by this Court.
18. Learned AGP, Mr.Trivedi is correct to the extent that defendant No. 4 cannot be compelled by the plaintiffs to come forward for any oral evidence against his wish and as such, Order 16 Rule 14 of the CPC empowers only the Court to exercise discretion in appropriate cases. Undisputedly, such power was not exercised by the Trial Court in the present case, inasmuch as the impugned application came to be filed by the plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION
19. In view of the discussion and reasons, I am of the view that the impugned application filed by the plaintiff below Exhibit 331 in Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 2011 requires to Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10023/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined be partly allowed to the extent that the Trial Court shall issue witness summons to the Town Planning Officer, Dahod Town Planning Office, as provided in para 4 of the impugned application, thereby, he can be called upon to come with the documents, which are enumerated in the application.
20. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present writ application is required to be partly allowed, which is hereby partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:59:47 IST 2025