Gujarat High Court
Patel Narendrakumar Trikamlal vs Chimanbhai Naranbhai Patel on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9915/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9915 of 2025
==========================================================
PATEL NARENDRAKUMAR TRIKAMLAL
Versus
CHIMANBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kunal S. Shah for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave for the respondent No.1 appearing on caveat.
2. The present application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"9. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction, or writ in nature of certiorari, a. To admit and allow this petition;
b. To set aside the order dated 2-7-2025 passed below Exhibit-562 in Special Civil Suit No.933/2010 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dholka, which is at Annexure-A, and be pleased to grant the relief prayed for in the application Exhibit-562, which is at Annexure-A. Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9915/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined c. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, operation, and effect of the order dated 2-7-2025 passed below Exhibit-562 in Special Civil Suit No. 933/2010 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dholka, which is at Annexure-A and stay the further proceeding of Special Civil Suit No. 933/2010 pending in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dholka;
d. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to grant ad interim relief in terms of paragraph (c) above; e. Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Shah would submit that despite the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited V/s. INEOS Styrolution Ltd reported in 2021 AIR Gujarat 12 followed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin V/s. Dilipbhai Bhaktiprasad Doshi reported in 2023 (3) GLR 2404 , an impugned application filed for issuance of witness-summons by the petitioner, who happens to be defendant No.3 in the suit came to be rejected by the Trial Court.
4. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the original plaintiff would submit that a plain reading of impugned application is nothing but a declaration given by defendant No.3, who intends to examine the persons/ witnesses shown in the impugned application and has not Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9915/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined made any request for issuance of any witness-summons to those persons.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would further submit that as such impugned application cannot be treated as a formal application for issuance of witness-summons, but it is a declaration and through pursis, it was filed before the Trial Court.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would further submit that as per Order 16, Rule 1 read with Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), defendant No.3 was required to assign reasons for the examination of witnesses, which is missing in the said declaration-cum- pursis.
7. After hearing the parties, prima facie, it appears that impugned application filed below Exh.562 in Special Civil Suit No.933 of 2010 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dholka is not an application for praying for issuance of witness-summons, but only a declaration that defendant No.3 intends to examine those persons stated in such declaration.
8. It is true that as per the judgments cited by the learned Advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner i.e. Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (supra) and Bhavesh Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:31:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9915/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined Nareshchandra Amin (supra), if any application filed under Order 16, Rule 1 of CPC by the party to the suit requires to be allowed, but at the same time, the party needs to follow the procedure as set out in Order 16, Rule 1 read with Rule 3 of CPC, which appears to have not been followed in the present case.
9. At this stage, learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties are ad idem that let petitioner/defendant No.3 file an appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking appropriate relief regarding issuance of witness summons to the witnesses which defendant No.3 intends to examine and such application may be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
10. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and after analysing the aforesaid facts and as such, there is a consensus ad idem to the fact that petitioner/defendant No.3 is required to file an appropriate application, seeking prayer for issuance of witness summons, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner/defendant No.3 shall file an appropriate application within seven days from the date of receipt of the copy this order with all particulars as required under law by serving an advance copy to the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:31:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9915/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined
11. It is open for the respondent No.1/plaintiff to file any objection, if any. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court shall decide such application in accordance with law without being influenced by any of its observations and anything observed hereinabove, albeit to decide it as per law.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, nothing more requires to be done at this stage in the present case. Accordingly, the present writ application is disposed of. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Nilesh Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:31:22 IST 2025