Gujarat High Court
Nanubhai Murabhai Aal vs Bhavnagar District Panchayat on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14125 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
NANUBHAI MURABHAI AAL & ORS.
Versus
BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANKIT N MEHTA(7302) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar with learned Advocate Mr. Ankit N. Mehta for the petitioners. Despite the order passed by this Court on 9th October, 2025, none remained present for the respondents.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) To admit this petition;
(B) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated dated 3.7.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shihor below Exh. 107 in Regular Civil Suit No. 188 of 2015 thereby allowing the application for recalling of witness in the interest of justice;
(C) During pendency and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to stay further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 188 of 2015 pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Shihor;
(D) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar would submit that the documents which are sought to be produced on record are the certified copies of the documents which are already on record, wherein tentative exhibit numbers were given to it, but by taking a hyper-technical approach, the Trial Court rejected the impugned application, thereby not allowed to submit on record the certified copy of such documents. 3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar would submit that the rule of procedure is a handmaid of justice and hyper technical approach requires to be avoided by Court while adjudicating Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined such type of application.
3.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar would further submit that the Trial Court has completely lost sight of the fact that the documents which are sought to be produced on record are only original documents of the documents which are already on record, but produced in the form of photocopies and in that view of the matter, there is no serious prejudice caused to the respondents, if the original documents are allowed to be taken on record. It is submitted that, so far as the recall of the plaintiff for examination to prove such documents are concerned, it is always open for the respondents/defendants to seek further cross-examination of the plaintiff on the documents which are sought to be produced on record. It is submitted that, if this Court can consider partial prayer of the petitioners, thereby allowed original documents in the form of certified copies of public documents to be submitted on record, it can be exhibited and in that view of the matter, the petitioner/plaintiff is not desirous to examine himself in relation to those documents.
3.3. To buttress his arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined would rely upon the following three decisions:
(i) Sugandhi (Dead) By Lrs & Anr V/S. P Rajkumar Rep By His Power Agent Imam Oli Reported In (2020) 10 Scc 706;
(ii) Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors V/S. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr Reported In 2022 Lawsuit (Sc) 739;
(iii) Tata Chemicals Limited V/S. Gujarat State Fertilizer And Chemicals Ltd Reported In 2024 Lawsuit (Guj) 2908.
3.4. Making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
4. No other and further submissions are made.
5. As none appeared for the respondents and not filed any reply, this Court would not be able to appreciate their objection, if any.
6. Having heard learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar and after appreciating the controversy germane in the matter, as such, it is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sugandhi (supra), Levaku (supra) and Tata Chemicals (supra). The Trial Court has committed serious error of law in not allowing the petitioner to submit the original document in the form of certified copy of public Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined document. It is now well-settled position of law that the rule of procedure is a handmaid of justice and hypertechnical approach requires to be avoided by the Trial Court.
7. At this stage, it would be apt to refer pertinent observations so made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (supra), wherein held thus:
"[9] It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3)."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Likewise, also in the case of Levaku Pedda (supra), the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined Honorable Apex Court has in terms observed that when the Trial Court and High Court not permitted the defendant to produce document as additional document, holding it as committed grave error in law. It held that to deprive a party to the suit not to file document, even if there is some delay, will lead to denial of justice. The Honorable Apex Court allowed such additional document to be submitted by the defendants in that case, so also permitted the plaintiff of that case to submit his additional evidence and thereby, allowed the opposite party to lead his evidence to rebut the evidence of the defendant concerned.
9. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, if the facts of the present case examined, it appears that the documents which are now sought to be produced on record are the original copies of the documents which were already on record but in the form of its photocopies. The documents sought to be submitted not only original one but claimed to be certified copies of public documents, which otherwise admissible in evidence. [See: Sections-74, 75, 76 & 78 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023] Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
10. In light of the aforesaid, according to my view, the Trial Court has committed serious error of law and so also committed jurisdictional error by not exercising its jurisdiction vested in it while adjudicating the impugned application filed below Exh.107 in the suit.
11. At the same time, considering the facts of the present case, the petitioner cannot be permitted to examine himself again on the ground of submission of those documents which are already on record, may be in the form of photocopies, inasmuch as it was public document, could have been submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff before his oral examination. Nonetheless, nothing prevents the respondents/defendants to ask for further cross-examination of the petitioner-plaintiff, who now hereby permitted to submit the original documents which were, in fact, not available on record when actually cross-examined by defendants.
12. As and when any such request will be made by respondents/defendants before the Trial Court in regards to further cross-examination of plaintiff on production of these newly submitted documents on record, such request may be Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined considered by the Trial Court, albeit in accordance with law.
13. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that impugned order requires to be interfered by this Court which I do so.
14. Consequently, impugned order dated 3rd July, 2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shinor below Exh.107 in Regular Civil Suit No.188 of 2015 is hereby quashed and set-aside.
15. Accordingly, impugned application filed below Exh.107 in the aforesaid suit is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, whereby the original documents in the form of certified copies produced by way of impugned application are allowed to be taken on record of the suit.
16. If any request made by defendants for cross-examination of plaintiff and/or his witness in regards to aforesaid documents, the Trial Court shall consider such request in light of what is observed hereinabove.
17. As far as giving exhibit to those certified copies of documents now allowed to be submitted on record is concerned, after examining the documents, the Trial Court may pass Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined appropriate order in this regard.
18. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ application is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) NILESH Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:48:58 IST 2025