Gujarat High Court
Patel Tusharbhai Ramjibhai Khunt vs Rishibhai Jayantbhai Parsana on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/118/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 118 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
PATEL TUSHARBHAI RAMJIBHAI KHUNT & ANR.
Versus
RISHIBHAI JAYANTBHAI PARSANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed challenging an order dated 08.02.2024, passed by the Small Causes Court, Rajkot, in Summary Suit No. 918 of 2022, whereby the Small Causes Court has passed an order and decreed the said suit.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision Application are, that the plaintiff filed Summary Suit under the Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/118/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined provisions of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "the Code").
4. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed summons for judgment and the Small Causes Court, by an order dated 03.11.2023 had granted conditional leave to defendants on a condition of depositing an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order passed below Exhibits 12 and 14.
5. Thereafter as the said amount was not deposited, the Trial Court partly allowed the said suit and passed a decree against the defendants for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision application has been filed.
6. The learned advocate for the defendant has argued that no proper opportunity was given to the defendants to put forward their case. Learned advocate has also stated that defendant No.2 has no concern with the transaction that took place between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and without considering the said fact, the Court has passed judgment and decree for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/118/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined
7. Moreover, it is also argued that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant does not fall within the purview of Order XXXVII of the Code, and therefore also the Trial Court could not have granted a decree and therefore the present Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby leave was granted to the respondent, was with a condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within 30 days of passing the said order and on failure of complying with the said conditional order, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment forthwith and in view of the said fact, the Trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and decree, and therefore the present Revision Application is required to be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, the fact remains that under the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code, the defendant has filed his appearance and the Court had granted leave to defend the suit, with a condition to deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of 30 days, and as the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/118/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined said condition was not complied with, the Trial Court has passed a judgment and decree for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the suit. If the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code, more particularly Rule 3(6), are taken into consideration, which reads as under:
"3.(6) At the hearing of such summons for judgment,--
(a) if the defendant has not applied for leave to defend, or if such application has been made and is refused, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith; or
(b) if the defendant is permitted to defend as to the whole or any part of the claim, the Court or Judge may direct him to give such security and within such time as may be fixed by the Court or Judge and that, on failure to give such security within the time specified by the Court or Judge or to carry out such other directions as may have been given by the Court or Judge, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith.
(7) The Court or Judge may, for sufficient cause shown by the defendant, excuse the delay of the defendant in entering an appearance or in applying Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/118/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined for leave to defend the suit."
10. In the present case, the Court has also noted the oral evidence of the plaintiff, which has been filed vide Exhibit 20. The Court has also taken into consideration the documentary evidence and, in view of the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 3(6(b)) , the judgment and decree has been passed. The provisions of Order XXXVII are self- explanatory, which clearly suggests that, if the condition on which the leave to defend is granted is not complied with, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment, and in view of the same, no interference is necessary. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the present Civil Revision Application is required to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:28:17 IST 2025