Anilkumar Tulsidas vs Rachna Arts Prints Pvt. Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 157 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Anilkumar Tulsidas vs Rachna Arts Prints Pvt. Ltd on 5 May, 2025

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/3937/2025                             ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025

                                                                                                        undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3937 of 2025
                      ==========================================================
                                                    ANILKUMAR TULSIDAS
                                                           Versus
                                                RACHNA ARTS PRINTS PVT. LTD.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      NILAY H PATEL(7856) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
                               SUNITA AGARWAL
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                                              Date : 05/05/2025
                                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. The present writ petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 6.2.2025 below Exh-13 passed in Commercial Civil Suit No. 650 of 2021 by the learned 5 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short), wherein the trial Court has directed the present petitioner- original defendant to deposit Rs.1,80,000/- from the date of order failing which the suit would be decreed against the defendant.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the respondent is the original plaintiff of Commercial Civil Suit No. 650 of 2021 and the petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent had preferred the Suit for recovery of non-payment of Job-work done by the respondent on behalf of and for the petitioner. Upon filing of the Civil Suit,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3937/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025

undefined

summons were served to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court and filed the affidavit of admission denial, which was below Exh-12. The petitioner also filed written statement against the prayer for summary judgment before the learned trial Court. Written statement was filed below Exh-13. On filing of the written statement, the petitioner also filed his written argument below Exh-15. The learned trial Court by way of impugned order dated 6.2.2025, directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- against summary judgment which is now impugned in the present writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. Nilay Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner.

4. It was being submitted by Mr. Nilay Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has failed in accepting the reasons given by the present petitioner

- original defendant and also failed to understand that the original plaintiff- respondent has belatedly approached the learned trial Court and not filed the suit within limitation. In view of the same, the direction given to the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,80,000/- against the summary judgment is utterly arbitrary, capricious and illegal. It was further sought to be submitted that the plaint does not disclose any prima-facie case of the plaintiff and the evidences produced by the respondent- original plaintiff are not duly proved and the evidence should be gone through by the test of admissibility and proof and, therefore, the learned trial Court could not have given direction of making payment of Rs.1,80,000/-. It

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3937/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025

undefined

has been further submitted that the learned trial Court failed in coming to the conclusion that the defence of the present petitioner - original defendant are contrary to each other and, therefore, the direction in the impugned order could not have been given. In the defence, petitioner has raised issue of quality of goods. Lastly, it was sought to be submitted that the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- is very harsh and upon failure to do so, a judgment would be passed against the petitioner decreeing the suit. Therefore, such condition would surely result into grave injustice. In wake of such submissions, Mr. Patel, learned advocate has submitted to consider the prayers as made in the writ petition.

5. Having heard Mr. Nilay Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, the main issue raised is with regard to direction of making payment of Rs.1,80,000/- against the summary judgment. On perusing the observation made by learned trial Court, a categorical finding is given that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove that the work done by the plaintiff was defective. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that the work done by the respondent was defective and there was issue of quality. The same is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Even the facts placed on record show that there is no notice by the petitioner to the respondent with regard to the quality of goods or to allege that the goods were defective. Further, apart from the bald statement that there was no legal notice, there is nothing on record brought by the petitioner to showcase with regard to the quality of goods. This finding is categorically recorded

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3937/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025

undefined

by the learned trial Court in the impugned order. Further, on perusal of the evidence on record, it can be borne out that the last transaction was made on 29.5.2017 and the last payment was made on 2.8.2019. The suit was filed in the year 2021 and, therefore, the suit was within the period of limitation and therefore, there was no issue of limitation also. It has been categorically observed by the learned trial Court that the respondent had asserted the cause of action and the last payment was made in the year 2019. Therefore, there was no issue of limitation.

6. The last issue raised by Mr. Nilay Patel is with regard to the fact that there are triable issues. However, the Commercial Court has given categorical findings that job work was done and there is non-payment by the petitioner. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the job work done by the respondent-plaintiff. Further, there is no dispute with regard to placement of order of job work by the petitioner herein namely original defendant. Further, the fact is disclosed with regard to non-payment of the running Accounts. On such factual background, the Commercial Court has granted leave to defend conditionally on payment of Rs.1,80,000/- of the amount due and such observations are absolutely justifiable and not required to be interfered with.

7. It needs to be observed that the circumstances under which the learned Commercial Court is required to grant unconditional leave to defend are cases where the defendant shows substantial good defence where he is very likely to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/3937/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025

undefined

succeed and further showcases that there are genuine triable issues which shadows clout on the transaction itself. In such situation, the Commercial Court can definitely grant unconditional leave to defend. However, when defendant though raises some dispute as triable issues but has not been able to showcase the genuineness of such issues raised, then the Commercial Court can definitely balance the requirement of expeditious disposal of Commercial Cases on the one hand with imposing conditions of payment in the Court.

8. In the instant case, when the Commercial Court has categorically observed about the genuineness of the transaction as well as the factum of the job work done and other aspects of commercial transaction are brought on record then the conditional leave to defend on payment of Rs.1,80,000/- of the amount due cannot be interfered with. The reasons assigned by the Commercial Court while granting conditional leave to defend in favour of the petitioner are absolutely justifiable in the wake of discussion made herein above.

In view of the same, the present petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAJ GEORGE