Gujarat High Court
Jayendra Natwarlal Panchal vs Bhupendra Baldevbhai Patel on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14117 of 2025
======================================
JAYENDRA NATWARLAL PANCHAL & ANR.
Versus
BHUPENDRA BALDEVBHAI PATEL
======================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT P PATEL(3498) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS KIRAN R UDASI(12127) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Ms. Kiran R. Udasi, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and perused the record. This is a wholly
misconceived petition seeking for intervention of this Court in
exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India to assail the judgment and order
dated 28.10.2021 of decreeing the Summary Suit, namely,
Special Summary Suit No.4 of 2021. The further challenge is
to the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Execution Petition (Special
Execution Petition No.1 of 2022).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
2. Pertinent is to note that the petitioners have approached
this Court on the publication of the notice of attachment for
public auction dated 24.07.2025 pursuant to the order dated
15.03.2023 passed by the Executing Court, as per Order XXI
Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, over the properties
described in paragraph '4' of the application.
3. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for
the petitioners to assail the public notice for auction is that at
no stage of the proceedings of the Summary Suit, the
petitioners were aware of the same. The petitioners -
defendants have been prevented from entering appearance
within the prescribed statutory period and from filing an
application seeking leave to defend as contemplated under
Order XXXVII Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. It is stated in the writ petition that without strict
compliance with the service provisions, which are mandatory
in a Summary Suit and without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners, the Commercial Court has
proceeded to record that, in default of appearance, the
allegations in the plaint were to be admitted. The contention
is that the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2021 is an ex-
parte decree passed by the Commercial Court.
5. It is further submitted that even the petitioners have not
received any summons or notice issued by the Executing
Court in Execution Petition No.1 of 2022, wherein the
impugned order dated 15.03.2023 has been passed. The
submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners based on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
the averments made in the petition is that both the orders of
decreeing the Summary Suit and in the Execution Petition
have been passed without effecting due service of summons
by the Commercial Court.
6. Pertinent is to note that there is no whisper in the
petition as to how the petitioners came to know about the
public auction notice issued vide advertisement dated
24.07.2025. In a vague manner in paragraph '3.10' of the
petition, it is stated that petitioner No.1 is currently residing
at the United States of America and that he came to know
about such execution being filed while the advertisement in
the public newspaper was published until then the petitioner
was unaware about such proceedings.
7. Considering the averments made in the petition, suffice
it to note that for any averment made in the present petition
about the petitioners not being aware of the proceedings of
the Summary Suit or the Execution Case or the said
proceedings having been conducted without service of
summons upon the petitioners or being ex-parte in nature, no
application whatsoever, for recall of the decree or the order
passed by the Executing Court on the said ground, has been
filed so far. There is no whisper in the petition about any such
application.
8. It is further pertinent to note that from the description of
the array of parties in the petition and as indicated in the
order passed in the Summary Suit at page '17' of the paper-
book, the local address of the petitioners, of the Ahmedabad
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
City has been mentioned therein. In the present petition,
petitioner No.1 is shown as resident of Ahmedabad, whereas
petitioner No.2 is the proprietorship firm represented through
its proprietor, namely petitioner No.1 herein, which is also
based at Ahmedabad. Though the petitioner No.2 is sought to
be represented through a Power of Attorney holder, Mr.
Ghanshyambhai Natwarlal Panchal, but his complete
description has not been mentioned in the array of parties in
the present petition.
9. It is further pertinent to note that the order impugned
dated 28.10.2021 passed in the Summary Suit categorically
records that suit summons were duly served upon the
defendants and none of them had put in appearance nor had
filed their address purshis.
10. The order passed in the Execution case further records
that the defendants / judgment debtors remained unserved
through the ordinary process and hence substituted service
was permitted and as per the application for compliance of
the order passed by the Executing Court, process was duly
served by substituted service to the judgment debtors /
defendants.
11. In these facts and circumstances of the present case, we
do not find any good ground to invoke our extra ordinary
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to attach any illegality to any of the orders by
Commercial Court in the Summary Suit or the Executing
Court in the Execution Petition. The petition is liable to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14117/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
dismissed being misconceived and dismissed, as such. No
order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.)
(D.N.RAY, J.)
siji
