Gujarat High Court
Amaratbhai Sonijibhai Chaudhari vs Bhilabhai Kevsibhai Chaudhari on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1340 of 2022
==========================================================
AMARATBHAI SONIJIBHAI CHAUDHARI & ANR.
Versus
BHILABHAI KEVSIBHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA P PATEL(5430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NIMISHA J PAREKH(8015) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Archana Patel for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for respondent No.3. Though served, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. It is reported that respondent No.1 died but no legal heirs are brought on record.
2. As far as possible, the parties will be referred as per their original position in the suit.
3. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief.
"a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the orders below exhibit-219 dated 15.09.2021 and below exhibit- 220 dated 15.12.2021 respectively passed by Learned Principal Civil Judge, Valod in Regular Civil Suit no. 11 of 2009 and thereby allow the application below-219 for produced the private handwriting expert report Or the application below exhibit-220 for sending the documents and signatures of the respondent no.3 for the experts opinion to the FSL, Gandhinagar.
c) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition your Lordships may be pleased to stay further proceedings in Regular Civil Suit no. 11 of 2009.
d) Your lordships may be pleased to pass any other appropriate and just order/s in the interest of justice."
Facts of the case
4. The petitioners herein are original plaintiffs, whereas respondents are original defendants of the Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2009 pending before Principle Civil Judge, Valod. The plaintiffs sought for hand writing expert opinion through Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Gandhinagar, which was allowed by the trial Court vide its order dated 26.02.2020. Thereafter, it appears that plaintiffs unable to deposit the fees of expert and so requested the trial Court to call back the documents sent to FSL, Gandhinagar, which was also allowed by the trial Court vide its order dated 18.06.2021. In the meantime, the plaintiffs appear to have secured private hand writing expert report on 26.12.2019, it sought to be produced on record and requested the trial Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Court to allow the plaintiffs to produce and give it an exhibit. Such prayer was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 15.09.2021.
4.1 The plaintiffs have filed another impugned application below Exh. 220 on 29.09.2021, thereby requested the trial Court to sent the documents to the hand writing expert. Such application was also met with the same fate i.e. rejected on 15.12.2021. It is required to be noted that prior to file these impugned applications, the evidence of the plaintiffs was already over. Hence, the present writ application.
Submission of the petitioners - plaintiffs.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Archna Patel for the plaintiffs would submit that the trial Court ought not to have rejected the impugned applications, inasmuch to bring the truth on record, the trial Court ought to have allowed the plaintiffs to submit expert evidence on record, and requires to have been exhibited. She would further submit that merely because there is delay in filing application would not be a ground to reject such prayers made by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that initially, the documents were sent for inspection of FSL, Gandhinagar but due to insufficient funds, the plaintiffs could not deposit the amount and requested the trial Court Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined to call back those documents.
5.1 Learned advocate Ms. Patel would further submit that in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the plaintiffs secured private hand writing expert report, the same ought to have been admitted in evidence by the trial Court, even though it was produced at belated stage. She would further submit that when such private hand writing report was not allowed by the trial Court, at least to get signature verified of the documents in question, the trial Court requires to have sent those documents to another hand writing expert as prayed in impugned application filed below Ex. 220.
5.2 It is respectfully submitted that there is no delay on the part of the plaintiffs in filing the impugned applications; rather, in view of the facts germane on the record, the request made by the plaintiffs is justified.
5.3 Making the above submission, learned advocate Ms. Patel would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
Submission of the respondent No.3 - defendant No.3
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined respondent No.3 would submit that when earlier the request made by the plaintiffs was accepted by the trial Court, whereby, documents were sent for examination of FSL, Gandhinagar, the plaintiffs could not have requested the trial Court to call back such documents on the pretext that due to short of funds. It is submitted that when once plaintiffs voluntarily requested the trial Court to call back the documents which were sent for examination of hand writing expert, later on, the plaintiffs can't allow to reiterate the very request in different form. He would further submit that when first impugned application to be filed below Exh. 219 whereby, requested the trial Court to allow production of report dated 26.12.2019 of private hand writing expert and to be given exhibit, by the time, the evidence of the plaintiffs was already over.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Modi would further submit that unless and until the witness was examined on record to prove such report, the private document in the form of hand writing expert, could not have been exhibited which is correctly not exhibited.
6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Modi would further submit that on rejection of first impugned application, instead of challenging it at relevant point of time, the plaintiffs have Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined filed another impugned application below Exh. 220 with a request to sent the documents for hand writing expert, which was already availed and thereafter the plaintiffs called back those documents from FSL, Gandhinagar. It is submitted that while rejecting the request, the trial Court has considered the conduct of the plaintiffs whereby, it found that just to delay the trial of suit, application after application were filed by the plaintiffs, which is not permissible in law.
6.3 Learned advocate Mr. Modi would further submit that by passage of time, the suit in question reaches upto stage of final hearing of the parties, inasmuch as, oral arguments of respondents/ defendants were got over but the plaintiffs are not turning up before the trial Court and due to pendency of this writ application, the trial Court is not in a position to move further, though there is no stay granted in those proceedings by this Court.
6.4 Making the above submission, learned advocate Mr. Modi would request this Court to reject the present writ application.
Analysis
7. The facts which are stated hereinabove are not in Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined dispute. It remain undisputed on record that at relevant point of time, the request of the plaintiffs to send the documents in question for hand writing expert i.e. FSL, Gandhinagar was accepted by the trial Court, thereby, the documents were sent to FSL, Gandhinagar. The reasons best known to the plaintiffs, they have shown their inability to deposit the amount of cost of hand writing expert i.e. FSL, Gandhinagar. So, they requested the trial Court to call back those documents from hand writing expert I.e. FSL, Gandhinagar. When such is a fact, again such request made by the plaintiffs would only show that they want to delay the trial of the suit proceedings.
7.1 The private hand writing expert opinion though obtained by the plaintiff on 26.12.2019 but for any reason, for the first time, it was submitted with the impugned application below Exh. 219 on 14.07.2021. As such, there is no satisfactory explanation coming forth from the side of the plaintiff to hold back such report for quite long time, inasmuch as, the evidence of the plaintiffs was going on at relevant time. As such, the plaintiffs could have easily submitted this private hand writing expert report obtained in the month of December, 2019 during the course of his oral evidence which they failed to do so.
7.2 The trial Court having considered all these aspects and
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
taking note of the fact that both these impugned applications having filed at the time of final argument would only delay the trial. Taking into account all such aspect and peculiar facts of present case, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the trial Court.
7.3 It is true that ordinarily the Court should allow such type of applications as and when filed for sending the documents for hand writing expert, but at the same time, the Court should not be oblivious of the fact that if it is designed by the litigant just to delay the trial of the suit then, it should be discouraged by the Court.
7.4 In fact the trial Court has recorded that intention of the plaintiffs want to delay the trial of the suit at any reason and for such act, it could have imposed exemplary cost upon the plaintiffs. Nonetheless, considering the poor financial background of the plaintiffs, such was awarded by the trial Court, this Court also would not like impose heavy cost upon the plaintiffs just to delay the trial for all these years, considering the fact that the plaintiffs are not coming from sound financial position.
8. At this stage, I would also like to remind myself scope and power available to this Court under Article 227 of the Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Constitution of India which is succinctly discussed in follow- ing two decisions of Honourable Supreme Court of India. First one in a case of Sameer Suresh Gupta TR PA Holder vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 374, the relevant observation of the aforesaid judgment reads as un- der:-
"[6] In our view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside be- cause while deciding the writ petition filed by the respondent the learned Single Judge ignored the limitations of the High Court's ju- risdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The parameters for exercise of power by the High Court under that Article were consid- ered by the two Judge Bench of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., 2003 6 SCC 675. After considering various facets of the issue, the two Judge Bench culled out the following principles:
(1) Amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from 01-07-2002 in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not af-
fect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the Courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for cor- recting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e. when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by over- stepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in fla- grant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure speci- fied, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a juris- diction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exer- cised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdic- tion, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and
(ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate Court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory juris- diction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pen- dency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the er- ror though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or super- visory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not cor- rected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of jus- tice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdic- tion will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-ap-
Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
preciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing in- ferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory juris- diction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English Courts has almost obliter- ated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate Court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate Court as the Court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The same question was considered by another Bench in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 338] , and it was held: (SCC pp. 347-49, para
49) "(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the High Court under these two articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in ex-
ercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of the Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also op- erate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of their power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the prin- ciples laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh [Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215] and the prin- ciples in Waryam Singh [Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215] have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh [Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215] , followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can in- terfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and mani- fest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because an- other view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordi- nate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
(i) The High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] and therefore abridgment by a constitu- tional amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of su- perintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the en- tire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpol- luted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to the High Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high de- gree of judicial discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be coun- terproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality."
(emphasis supplied) 8.1 The second decision in a case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand Goel.Garment Craft, Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sus- tained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the lim- ited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory juris- diction does not act as a Court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own deci- sion on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior Court or tri- bunal.[Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The jurisdiction exer-
cised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental princi- ples of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the Court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97] has observed : (SCC pp. 101- 102, para 6) "6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exam- ined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The ex- ercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior Courts and tribunals within the bounds of their au- thority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any un- limited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong deci- sions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate Courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the Courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave in- justice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1340/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined appellate Court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate Court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the find- ings of facts of an inferior Court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable per- son can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the Court or tri- bunal has come to."
(emphasis supplied) 8.3 In view of aforesaid decisions, this Court would not like to interfere with the impugned orders passed by trial Court, having neither found it erroneous, perverse and or not found any jurisdictional error so committed by trial Court.
Conclusion :
9. In view of the aforesaid observation, discussion and reasons assigned, the impugned orders below exhibit-219 dated 15.09.2021 and below exhibit- 220 dated 15.12.2021 respectively passed by Learned Principal Civil Judge, Valod in Regular Civil Suit no. 11 of 2009 are hereby confirmed.
9.1 Consequently, the present writ-application requires to be rejected which is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) SALIM/ Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:08:54 IST 2025