Gujarat High Court
Jayendra Natwarlal Panchal vs Bhupendra Baldevbhai Patel on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14117 of 2025
======================================
JAYENDRA NATWARLAL PANCHAL & ANR.
Versus
BHUPENDRA BALDEVBHAI PATEL
======================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT P PATEL(3498) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS KIRAN R UDASI(12127) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Ms. Kiran R. Udasi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. This is a wholly misconceived petition seeking for intervention of this Court in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the judgment and order dated 28.10.2021 of decreeing the Summary Suit, namely, Special Summary Suit No.4 of 2021. The further challenge is to the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Execution Petition (Special Execution Petition No.1 of 2022).
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
2. Pertinent is to note that the petitioners have approached this Court on the publication of the notice of attachment for public auction dated 24.07.2025 pursuant to the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Executing Court, as per Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, over the properties described in paragraph '4' of the application.
3. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to assail the public notice for auction is that at no stage of the proceedings of the Summary Suit, the petitioners were aware of the same. The petitioners - defendants have been prevented from entering appearance within the prescribed statutory period and from filing an application seeking leave to defend as contemplated under Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. It is stated in the writ petition that without strict compliance with the service provisions, which are mandatory in a Summary Suit and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the Commercial Court has proceeded to record that, in default of appearance, the allegations in the plaint were to be admitted. The contention is that the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021 is an ex- parte decree passed by the Commercial Court.
5. It is further submitted that even the petitioners have not received any summons or notice issued by the Executing Court in Execution Petition No.1 of 2022, wherein the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 has been passed. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners based on Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the averments made in the petition is that both the orders of decreeing the Summary Suit and in the Execution Petition have been passed without effecting due service of summons by the Commercial Court.
6. Pertinent is to note that there is no whisper in the petition as to how the petitioners came to know about the public auction notice issued vide advertisement dated 24.07.2025. In a vague manner in paragraph '3.10' of the petition, it is stated that petitioner No.1 is currently residing at the United States of America and that he came to know about such execution being filed while the advertisement in the public newspaper was published until then the petitioner was unaware about such proceedings.
7. Considering the averments made in the petition, suffice it to note that for any averment made in the present petition about the petitioners not being aware of the proceedings of the Summary Suit or the Execution Case or the said proceedings having been conducted without service of summons upon the petitioners or being ex-parte in nature, no application whatsoever, for recall of the decree or the order passed by the Executing Court on the said ground, has been filed so far. There is no whisper in the petition about any such application.
8. It is further pertinent to note that from the description of the array of parties in the petition and as indicated in the order passed in the Summary Suit at page '17' of the paper- book, the local address of the petitioners, of the Ahmedabad Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined City has been mentioned therein. In the present petition, petitioner No.1 is shown as resident of Ahmedabad, whereas petitioner No.2 is the proprietorship firm represented through its proprietor, namely petitioner No.1 herein, which is also based at Ahmedabad. Though the petitioner No.2 is sought to be represented through a Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Ghanshyambhai Natwarlal Panchal, but his complete description has not been mentioned in the array of parties in the present petition.
9. It is further pertinent to note that the order impugned dated 28.10.2021 passed in the Summary Suit categorically records that suit summons were duly served upon the defendants and none of them had put in appearance nor had filed their address purshis.
10. The order passed in the Execution case further records that the defendants / judgment debtors remained unserved through the ordinary process and hence substituted service was permitted and as per the application for compliance of the order passed by the Executing Court, process was duly served by substituted service to the judgment debtors / defendants.
11. In these facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any good ground to invoke our extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to attach any illegality to any of the orders by Commercial Court in the Summary Suit or the Executing Court in the Execution Petition. The petition is liable to be Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined dismissed being misconceived and dismissed, as such. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.) (D.N.RAY, J.) siji Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:16 IST 2025