Gujarat High Court
Sudip Co-Operative Housing Society ... vs Sudip Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 11 December, 2023
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4533/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4533 of 2023
================================================================
SUDIP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VIBHAG 2 (ROYAL
ENCLAVE)
Versus
SUDIP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VIBHAG 1 (ROYAL
CRESCENT)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH with MR KETUL R PATEL(12782) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH H DAVE(5306) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 11/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah
appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Ketul R. Patel
appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr.
Siddharth H. Dave appearing for the respondent.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mehul Sharad
Shah referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Shalimar Chemical Works
Limited v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and
Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 423 and the decision
of this Court in the case of Sardar Sarovar Narmada
Nigam Limited v. Rupdevsinhji Dolatsinhji Gohil
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4533/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023
undefined
reported in (2021) 4 GLR 3361 submitted that the
impugned orders dated 12.03.2019 passed below
Exhibits 42 and 45 in Regular Civil Suit No.15 of
2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad
(Rural) are without any reason. The learned Judge
has not taken into consideration the objection to
exhibit the documents filed by the list. It is further
submitted that the impugned orders exhibits the
documents contingent to prove the same. It is further
submitted that the said order is against the
established procedures and even against the
judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court
which mandates that the documents are required to
be exhibited as admitted only on judicial
determination and when an objection has been raised
to exhibit the same, the Court becomes duty bound
to examine the admissibility of the documentary
evidence. It is further submitted that by passing a
single line order the evidence of the suit cannot be
left at the instance of the parties concerned without
any judicial order of the proof and admissibility of
the documents.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Siddharth
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4533/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023
undefined
H. Dave appearing for the respondent has defended
the impugned orders, both dated 12.03.2019 below
Exhibits 42 and 45, in Regular Civil Suit No.15 of
2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Ahmedabad (Rural). It is further submitted that the
list produced alongwith evidence gives the description
of the documents proposed to be produced and those
description are self-explanatory in nature. Hence, the
order passed in a single line is a reasoned order, as
it is open to the parties to prove the same.
Therefore, it is submitted that the other side has no
cause to even challenge the same, since the order in
question rather puts burden on the parties, who here
is the plaintiff to prove the documents proposed to be
filed and thus submitted that the orders are just and
legal.
4. Having heard the submissions canvassed and on
perusing the records of the case, it is required to be
noted that the endorsement on the list by the
defendants shows their objection for those to be
exhibited. Further on application moved at Exhibits
42 and 45, the defendants have raised their objection.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4533/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023
undefined
5. It is to be appreciated that mere exhibiting the
documents does not dispense with the proof of the
documents, but as per procedure, the learned Judge
was required to take into consideration the provisions
of Order 13 Rule 1, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'CPC')
which are in connection with the suit matters prior to
settling of the issues. Thereafter, by way of Order 18
Rule 4, the recording of evidence is to be considered
and the proof of admissibility of such documents are
required to be examined and thereafter, only an order
to exhibit the same should have been passed.
6. This Court does not want to enter into further details
since the impugned orders do not deal with the
provisions of the CPC by following the procedures.
7. In view of the same, the impugned orders, both
dated 12.03.2019 below Exhibits 42 and 45, in
Regular Civil Suit No.15 of 2014 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) are
quashed and set aside, with a direction to the learned
Judge that the proof and admissibility of the
documents raised by the parties may be decided in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4533/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2023
undefined
accordance with law and procedure.
8. In the result, if necessary, if the plaintiff proposes to
file further or fresh affidavit in examination-in-chief,
then the prayer should be allowed and the
admissibility of the documents be decided in
accordance with the referred decisions and procedure
of CPC, in accordance with law.
9. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
