Gujarat High Court
Nanubhai Murabhai Aal vs Bhavnagar District Panchayat on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14125 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
NANUBHAI MURABHAI AAL & ORS.
Versus
BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANKIT N MEHTA(7302) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar with learned
Advocate Mr. Ankit N. Mehta for the petitioners. Despite the
order passed by this Court on 9th October, 2025, none
remained present for the respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) To admit this petition;
(B) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated dated 3.7.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge,
Shihor below Exh. 107 in Regular Civil Suit No. 188 of 2015 thereby allowing
the application for recalling of witness in the interest of justice;
(C) During pendency and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to stay
further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 188 of 2015 pending in the court
of Additional Civil Judge, Shihor;
(D) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the facts
and circumstances of the present case."
3. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar would submit
that the documents which are sought to be produced on record
are the certified copies of the documents which are already on
record, wherein tentative exhibit numbers were given to it, but
by taking a hyper-technical approach, the Trial Court rejected
the impugned application, thereby not allowed to submit on
record the certified copy of such documents.
3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar would submit that the rule of
procedure is a handmaid of justice and hyper technical
approach requires to be avoided by Court while adjudicating
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
such type of application.
3.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar would further submit that the
Trial Court has completely lost sight of the fact that the
documents which are sought to be produced on record are only
original documents of the documents which are already on
record, but produced in the form of photocopies and in that
view of the matter, there is no serious prejudice caused to the
respondents, if the original documents are allowed to be taken
on record. It is submitted that, so far as the recall of the
plaintiff for examination to prove such documents are
concerned, it is always open for the respondents/defendants to
seek further cross-examination of the plaintiff on the
documents which are sought to be produced on record. It is
submitted that, if this Court can consider partial prayer of the
petitioners, thereby allowed original documents in the form of
certified copies of public documents to be submitted on record,
it can be exhibited and in that view of the matter, the
petitioner/plaintiff is not desirous to examine himself in
relation to those documents.
3.3. To buttress his arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
would rely upon the following three decisions:
(i) Sugandhi (Dead) By Lrs & Anr V/S. P Rajkumar Rep By
His Power Agent Imam Oli Reported In (2020) 10 Scc 706;
(ii) Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors V/S. Gottumukkala
Venkata Subbamma & Anr Reported In 2022 Lawsuit (Sc)
739;
(iii) Tata Chemicals Limited V/S. Gujarat State Fertilizer And
Chemicals Ltd Reported In 2024 Lawsuit (Guj) 2908.
3.4. Making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Thakkar
would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
4. No other and further submissions are made.
5. As none appeared for the respondents and not filed any reply,
this Court would not be able to appreciate their objection, if
any.
6. Having heard learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar and after
appreciating the controversy germane in the matter, as such, it
is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Sugandhi (supra), Levaku (supra)
and Tata Chemicals (supra). The Trial Court has committed
serious error of law in not allowing the petitioner to submit the
original document in the form of certified copy of public
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
document. It is now well-settled position of law that the rule of
procedure is a handmaid of justice and hypertechnical
approach requires to be avoided by the Trial Court.
7. At this stage, it would be apt to refer pertinent observations so
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi
(supra), wherein held thus:
"[9] It is often said that procedure is the
handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical
hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way
of the court while doing substantial justice.
If the procedural violation does not seriously
cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts
must lean towards doing substantial justice
rather than relying upon procedural and
technical violation. We should not forget the
fact that litigation is nothing but a journey
towards truth which is the foundation of
justice and the court is required to take
appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying
truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court
should take a lenient view when an application
is made for production of the documents under
sub-rule (3)."
(emphasis supplied)
8. Likewise, also in the case of Levaku Pedda (supra), the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
Honorable Apex Court has in terms observed that when the
Trial Court and High Court not permitted the defendant to
produce document as additional document, holding it as
committed grave error in law. It held that to deprive a party to
the suit not to file document, even if there is some delay, will
lead to denial of justice. The Honorable Apex Court allowed
such additional document to be submitted by the defendants in
that case, so also permitted the plaintiff of that case to submit
his additional evidence and thereby, allowed the opposite party
to lead his evidence to rebut the evidence of the defendant
concerned.
9. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid decisions, if the facts of the present case
examined, it appears that the documents which are now sought
to be produced on record are the original copies of the
documents which were already on record but in the form of its
photocopies. The documents sought to be submitted not only
original one but claimed to be certified copies of public
documents, which otherwise admissible in evidence. [See:
Sections-74, 75, 76 & 78 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023]
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
10. In light of the aforesaid, according to my view, the Trial Court
has committed serious error of law and so also committed
jurisdictional error by not exercising its jurisdiction vested in it
while adjudicating the impugned application filed below
Exh.107 in the suit.
11. At the same time, considering the facts of the present case, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to examine himself again on the
ground of submission of those documents which are already on
record, may be in the form of photocopies, inasmuch as it was
public document, could have been submitted by the
petitioner/plaintiff before his oral examination. Nonetheless,
nothing prevents the respondents/defendants to ask for further
cross-examination of the petitioner-plaintiff, who now hereby
permitted to submit the original documents which were, in fact,
not available on record when actually cross-examined by
defendants.
12. As and when any such request will be made by
respondents/defendants before the Trial Court in regards to
further cross-examination of plaintiff on production of these
newly submitted documents on record, such request may be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
considered by the Trial Court, albeit in accordance with law.
13. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that
impugned order requires to be interfered by this Court which I
do so.
14. Consequently, impugned order dated 3rd July, 2024 passed by
the Additional Civil Judge, Shinor below Exh.107 in Regular
Civil Suit No.188 of 2015 is hereby quashed and set-aside.
15. Accordingly, impugned application filed below Exh.107 in the
aforesaid suit is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid extent,
whereby the original documents in the form of certified copies
produced by way of impugned application are allowed to be
taken on record of the suit.
16. If any request made by defendants for cross-examination of
plaintiff and/or his witness in regards to aforesaid documents,
the Trial Court shall consider such request in light of what is
observed hereinabove.
17. As far as giving exhibit to those certified copies of documents
now allowed to be submitted on record is concerned, after
examining the documents, the Trial Court may pass
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14125/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
appropriate order in this regard.
18. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ
application is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made
absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
NILESH
