Gujarat High Court
Ashapura Trade And Transport Pvt. Ltd vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13183/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13183 of 2025
==========================================================
ASHAPURA TRADE AND TRANSPORT PVT. LTD.
Versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURAV K MEHTA(5227) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KASHYAP JANI, FOR MR R.C JANI, For the Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for respondent waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent.
2) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of learned counsel for both sides, present petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith.
3) Heard Mr. Gaurav K. Mehta, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Kashyap R. Jani for Mr. R. C. Jani, learned counsel for respondent - Bharat Sanchat Nigam Limited.
4) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following relief(s):-
"B. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside direction No.2 passed in an order dated 08.08.2025 passed below Exh:58 by the learned Small Cause Court No.8 at Ahmedabad in Summary Suit No.1088/2022 by which the condition was put before the petitioner to deposit 50 % of suit value i.e. Rs.3,25,899/- within a period of 30 days and upon the deposit of the same the stage of evidence of the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 00:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13183/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined petitioner is to be opened. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A collectively"
5) The short controversy germane in the present petition as regards to imposition of a condition by trial Court while allowing impugned application filed below Exh: 58 by petitioner herein.
6) It appears that Summary Civil Suit No. 1088/2022 filed by respondent against petitioner, wherein after closing of evidence of plaintiff, right of petitioner being defendant was also closed as defendant did not remain present for its oral evidence. So, impugned application filed below Exh:58 by defendant with a request to re-open its right to lead oral evidence.
7) After hearing the parties, trial Court partly allowed the impugned application, but imposed condition that petitioner - defendant shall have to deposit 50 % value of suit within 30 days. Hence, present petition.
8) Mr. Gaurav K. Mehta, learned counsel for petitioner would respectfully submit that there was no intention on part of defendant to delay suit proceedings, but certain facts, which are mentioned in the impugned application, defendant could not submit its oral evidence within stipulated time. It is submitted that, condition so imposed by trial Court is not only cumbersome, but was uncalled for inasmuch as an unconditional leave to defend the suit was permitted in favour of defendant as plaintiff did not press its summon for judgment. Mr. Mehta, Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 00:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13183/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined learned counsel for the petitioner would respectfully submit that rule of procedure is a handmaid of justice and pragmatic approach requires to be taken by trial Court while accepting the prayer of defendant. It is further submitted that when trial Court did notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Velu Swami Vs. N. Plani Swami, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275, such an exorbitant condition could not have been imposed upon defendant, thereby, it amounts to granting leave to defend the suit on imposing condition. Lastly, Mr. Mehta would respectfully submit that with suitable cost, right of defendant may be reopened and defendant may be permitted to lay its oral / documentary evidence.
9) Per contra, Mr. Kashyap Jani, learned counsel for respondent would respectfully submit that after evidence of plaintiff got over way back in the month of November, 2024, on several occasions, defendant did not remain present to lead its evidence, which resulted into passing of an order by trial Court, thereby, right of defendant was closed. It is respectfully submitted that suit in question being a summary suit requires to be tried as early as possible and there was a delay and latches on the part of defendant, which ultimately resulted into a delay in adjudication of the suit. Mr. Kashyap Jani would respectfully submit that trial Court has not committed any serious error of law by directing defendant to deposit 50 % of value of suit. It is respectfully submitted that, this Court should not entertain present writ application while Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 00:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13183/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India especially when no jurisdictional error committed by trial Court. Lastly, learned counsel Mr. Jani would submit that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that condition imposed by trial Court is cumbersome and inappropriate, a suitable cost may still be imposed upon defendant. Further, the Court may direct defendant to complete its evidence within a stipulated time.
10) The facts which are also noticed from the record would suggest that for few dates, the defendant could not remain present to lead its oral / documentary evidence. So, on noticing the fact that its right to lead oral evidence is closed, immediately defendant had filed impugned application citing a reason of its non-appearance. At this stage, this Court would not like to further delve into such reason inasmuch as the trial Court has already accepted such reason, thereby, allowed defendant to lead oral/ documentary evidence albeit with a condition to deposit 50 % of value of suit. The petitioner is aggrieved by such condition having so filed present writ application. It is undisputed fact remained on record and as such not disputed by Mr. Jani appearing for the original plaintiff that during pendency of summary suit, summon for judgment application was not pressed by plaintiff, thereby, defendant got right to contest summary suit unconditionally. If it is so, putting such a condition by trial Court while allowing defendant to lead its oral/documentary evidence, amounting to imposing conditional leave to defend the suit, which Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 00:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13183/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined otherwise, could not have been done in absence of any summon for judgment.
11) It is settled legal position of law that trial Court is well within its discretion to pass necessary order while reopen right of parties to lead evidence as rule of procedure is a handmaid of justice, but at the same time, such discretion requires to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. The record suggests that there was no gross negligence on the part of the defendant having not appeared before trial Court on few dates. If it be so, conduct of defendant would not suggest that there was an ill-intention on part of defendant to derail the trial of summary suit.
12) Having so observed and noticed and as discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate on the part of trial Court to impose such a condition, which is nothing but a cumbersome on the shoulder of defendant i.e. to deposit 50 % of value of suit. The right of party to lead oral / documentary evidence is a very vital right and cannot be taken away in haste and when such right requires to be reopened, trial Court requires to strike a balance between the parties, thereby, no injustice caused to any of the parties to the suit.
13) In light of what is discussed hereinabove and for the foregoing reason, I am of the view that impugned order requires to be modified.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 00:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13183/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 14) In view of the aforesaid, present impugned order dated 08.08.2025
passed by learned Small Cause Court No.8, Ahmedabad, below Exh:58 in Summary Suit No.1088/2022 is hereby modified to the extent that petitioner - defendant of the aforesaid suit is required to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- as costs within 10 days from today. Once the defendant deposits the amount of costs as ordered by this Court, trial Court is hereby directed to pay such amount to plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant shall be allowed to lead oral/documentary evidence, and accordingly, trial shall be concluded by trial Court as soon as possible.
15) In view of the foregoing conclusion, present writ application is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) SUCHIT Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 00:40:23 IST 2025