Gujarat High Court
Anupam Vinaychadra Uchat vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8483/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8483 of 2025
==========================================================
ANUPAM VINAYCHADRA UCHAT
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRIYAL M PARIKH(7593) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 30/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Priyal M. Parikh for the
petitioner.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-
"a. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and
setting aside the Impugned Order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Ld.
Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Small Cause Suit No. 212 of
2022;
b. Direct the Ld. Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad to recast
Issue No. 1 in Small Cause Suit No. 212 of 2022 in the following
manner:
"Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover the amount
of Rs. 2,73,037/- from the Defendant?"
c. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, pass an order
staying proceedings of Small Cause Suit No. 212 of 2022;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8483/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
d. An ex-parte interim relief in terms of para (c) above;
e. Pass such further orders as may be deemed just, fit, and proper
in the interest of justice;
f. Award costs of the present Petition in favour of the Petitioner."
3. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Parikh would
submit that when the defendant filed leave to defend
against summon for judgment filed by the petitioner
happens to be plaintiff of summary suit No. 212 of 2022
admitted certain dues and accordingly plaintiff was allowed
to withdrawal of such amount unconditionally by the trial
Court, thereby, for remaining balance of amount, the
plaintiff is required to prove the debt for which the
impugned application to recast/ modified the issue in
question was filed.
3.1 Learned advocate Ms. Parikh would further submit that
due to certain objections made by the trial Court in its
impugned order in Para-4 of such order would come in the
way of the plaintiff as trial Court has observed that the debt
has to be proved by the plaintiff in trial and the admission
which was made by the defendant in his pleading while filing
leave to defend is not taken care of.
4. To over-come such observation and findings recorded
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8483/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
by the trial Court which was unwarranted according to
learned advocate Ms. Parikh for the petitioner, the present
writ application is filed.
5. This Court finds that there is no error committed by the
trial Court in the impugned order. Inasmuch as when the suit
was filed, the plaintiff had sought for claim of Rs. 6,02,501/-,
whereas, at the time of filing leave to defend, defendant has
admitted partial dues of plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff
was allowed to withdraw such undisputed amount so
deposited by the defendant in the suit. Nonetheless, there
was no partial decree was passed as per second proviso of
Order 37 rule 5 of CPC as the case may be.
6. In view of the above, the plaintiff was required to prove
its debt as claimed in the suit. Of course, any admission made
by the defendant in its pleading, thereby undisputed amount
is deposited by the defendant which was ultimately allowed
to be drawn by the plaintiff, such admission available and
helpful to the plaintiff in proving its debt at the end of trial
of the suit, such admission can not be ignored by the trial
Court as per Section 58 of Evidence Act
7. At this stage, learned advocate Ms. Parikh, under the
instruction of her client, does not invite further reasons and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8483/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
not press the present writ application.
8. In view of the above, the present writ application is
disposed of as withdrawn. No order as to costs. It is always
open for the plaintiff to take all possible avenues and lead
evidence to prove its debt including the admissions made by
the defendants.
Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SALIM/
