Gujarat High Court
Prop. Of A.S.Marine, Aliraza Habibbhai ... vs M/S. Saif India on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16878 of 2024
==========================================================
PROP. OF A.S.MARINE, ALIRAZA HABIBBHAI SARANI
Versus
M/S. SAIF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ALINAVAZ A VAKIL(10191) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR B OZA(11654) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. MAHITOSH U SINGH(7015) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
SHRIJIT G PILLAI(7937) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Shrijit G. Pillai waives service of notice of Rule for respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Alinavaz A. Vakil for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Shrijit G. Pillai for the respondents.
4. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.
b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the order dated 06/04/2024 passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar in Summary Suit No. 33/2023 (Annexure D-E) and thereby allow the application to pass a decree in summary suit herein.
c) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition your Lordships may be pleased to vacate, implementation and operation of the order dated 06/04/2024 in Summary Suit No. 33/2023 passed by the Ld. 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar.
d) Your lordships may be pleased to pass any other appropriate and just order/s in the interest of justice."
5. Before proceed with the order, this Court would like to reproduce its order dated 28/08/2025 passed in the matter, which reads as under:
"1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there is leave note of learned Advocate Mr. Shrijit G. Pillai appearing for the respondents but there is a joint Vakalatnama of learned Advocate Mr. Mahitosh U. Singh also appearing for the respondents.
2. Be that as it may, this Court would not like to pass any adverse order in absence of learned Advocates appearing for the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined respondents.
3. Nonetheless, learned Advocate Mr. Alinavaz A. Vakil for the petitioner pointed out the difficulty of the petitioner that despite there is an order passed by the Trial Court, thereby respondents being defendants of Summary Suit filed by the petitioner directed to deposit 50% amount as claimed in the suit vide its order dated 09.10.2023, but till date, the respondents have not deposited 50% amount but some negligible amount is deposited. 3.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil would further submit that the impugned application was filed by the petitioner herein below Exh. 17 before the Trial Court whereby, it has been requested to the Trial Court that as respondents/ defendants failed to deposit the amount as ordered by the Trial Court below Exh. 10 vide its order dated 09.10.2023, as per Order 37 rule 6(b) of CPC, a decree may be passed in favour of the petitioner- plaintiff. Such application was not decided by the Trial Court only on the ground that said order passed by the Trial Court below Exh. 10, is challenged by the respondents-herein before this Court by way of Civil Revision Application No. 502 of 2023. 3.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil would further submit that this Court has not granted any stay against the said order below Exh. 10 passed by the Trial Court till date but such revision application is still pending. So, learned Advocate Mr.Vakil would submit that the order impugned passed by the Trial Court requires to be interfered by this Court and thereby, the Trial Court be directed to decide the impugned application filed below Exh. 17 in Summary Suit No. 33 of 2023 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar on its merit as early as possible.
4. As having heard learned Advocate for the petitioner at length Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined but considering the aforesaid fact which has been stated in the operative part of this order, this Court would like to hear learned Advocates for the respondents and to get their response.
5. Stand over to 1st September, 2025. Registry to list this matter on top of the board. It is made clear that on such date, no sick note or leave note filed by the learned Advocates for the respondents will be entertained by this Court."
6. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Advocate Mr. Pillai has submitted affidavit-in- reply opposing the prayer made in the petition, which is taken on record. According to learned Advocate Mr. Pillai, the present writ application is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and an arm-twisting method adopted by the petitioner, who happens to be the plaintiff of the summary suit in question, inasmuch as against the grant of conditional leave to defend, respondents herein have preferred Civil Revision Application No. 502 of 2023, which is pending at large before this Court for its adjudication. 6.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Pillai would further submit that there are serious questions of facts and law involved in the matter, thereby the Trial Court could not have granted conditional leave to defend, which could be Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined examined by this Court in the revision application. 6.2. Lastly, learned Advocate Mr. Pillai would submit that during the pendency of the matter, few amounts have been paid to the plaintiff, which could be confirmed from the Ledger annexed with the reply submitted by the respondents. So, according to learned Advocate Mr. Pillai, there is no substance in the writ application, which requires to be rejected.
7. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Vakil would emphasize what was argued by him on 28th August 2025 and would further submit that respondents could have filed the reply at the earliest, thereby, the petitioner could have responded to it, but in any case, there is no substance in the reply and this Court may accept the prayer made in the application.
8. The short facts appear to be that the petitioner happens to be the plaintiff of Summary Suit No. 33 of 2023 filed against the respondents, wherein, the Trial Court partly allowed leave to defend application filed by the respondents, granting conditional leave to defend, thereby directed the respondents to deposit 50% of the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined amount within the stipulated time. Undisputedly, such amount was not deposited by the respondents within time so granted by the Trial Court. The provisions of Order 37 Rule 6(b) of CPC reads as under:
"6. At the hearing of such summons for judgment:
(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."
9. As per the aforesaid provisions of law, on not depositing the order amount, the plaintiff would be entitled for decree as prayed in the suit. So, an impugned application came to be filed below Exhibit 17 by the petitioner/plaintiff, which came to be disposed of by the Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 6th April 2024 only on the ground that respondents have preferred civil revision application which is pending before this Court and in view of that, no order can be passed on the impugned application.
10. The approach of the Trial Court is thoroughly Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined misconceived on facts as well as law, inasmuch as this Court has not granted any stay / injunction against the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the respondents were directed to deposit 50% of the claimed amount in the suit. Prima facie, such order is not even revisable under Section-115 of CPC, but for reasons best known to the respondents, they have preferred the revision application. This Court would not like to further make comment upon the maintainability of such revision.
11. In any case, when there is no stay granted by this Court against the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby respondents are directed to deposit 50% of the amount claimed in the suit, being a condition to defend summary suit, having not complied with such direction issued by the Trial Court, as per the mandatory provisions of Order 37 Rule 6(b) of CPC, the Trial Court was required to have allowed the impugned application, which it failed to do so, thereby committed a jurisdictional error while passing impugned order. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts and provisions of law, I am of the view that the impugned order suffers from gross illegality and Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined also suffers from jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court while adjudicating the impugned application.
12. At the same time, it is brought to the notice of this Court that pending the dispute between the parties, including the present writ application, some of the payments have been made by the respondents to the petitioner, which requires to be adjusted against any deposit made by respondents. Such aspect of the matter needs to be examined by the Trial Court, if so requested.
13. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, the present writ application requires to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06/04/2024 passed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar below Exhibit 17 in Summary Suit No. 33 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, impugned application filed below Exhibit 17 in the aforesaid suit is restored back on its file. The Trial Court is hereby directed to hear and decide the impugned application within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, albeit in accordance with law. Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16878/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
14. Thus, the present application is hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Nilesh Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:52:14 IST 2025