Gujarat High Court
Chandrika Narendrakumar Monani vs Amrutlal Vallabhdas Monani Since Died ... on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16161/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16161 of 2022
==========================================================
CHANDRIKA NARENDRAKUMAR MONANI & ANR.
Versus
AMRUTLAL VALLABHDAS MONANI SINCE DIED DURING PENDENCY OF
SUIT THROUGH HIS HEIR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HASIT H JOSHI(2480) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 6
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,2,3,4,5,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 05/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hasit H. Joshi for the petitioners. Though served, none appears for the respondents.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Admit this petition.
(B) Quash and set aside the impugned order passed below Annexure A and B Exh. 144 and 147 Exh. dated 04.4.2022 and 12.4.2022 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.249/2015 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar.
(C) Direct the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge Jamnagar to reopen the right of the petitioners for production of evidence and permit the petitioners to produce Property Card Annexure D as prayed Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:17:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16161/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined for by the petitioners in their applications Exh. 144 and 147 and Exhibit the Property Card in evidence in accordance with law in respect of the suit property of City Survey No. 198 and take the same in evidence and decide the suit on the basis of the evidence on record. (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property forming part and parcel of City Survey No. 198 as per the Property Card annexure C in the interest of justice.
(E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar not to proceed further with Regular Civil Suit No. 249 of 2015.
(F) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Joshi pointed out that a certified copy of property card of one of the suit property is submitted by petitioners herein who happen to be plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.249 of 2015, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 04.04.2022.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi would further submit that simultaneously, the plaintiffs have also filed an application below Exh.147, requesting the Trial Court to reopen the right of plaintiffs to lead further evidence, which was also rejected by the Trial Court vide its order dated 12.04.2022.
5. After arguing for some time, under the instructions his client, learned Advocate Mr. Joshi does not press the present writ Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:17:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16161/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined application qua impugned order dated 12.04.2022 passed by trial Court in the application filed below Exh.147.
6. Nonetheless, learned Advocate Mr. Joshi would requests this Court that the prayer made in earlier impugned application filed below Exh.144 be considered, as the document sought to be produced is a government record. It is submitted that document i.e. property card sought to be produced on record of the suit is a public document and it cannot be objected by defendants as its in relation to the sale deed executed between defendants. As such, in view of the documents, no further evidene requires to be led by the defendants.
7. In support of his argument, he would rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) By Lrs & Anr V/S P Rajkumar Rep By His Power Agent Imam Oli Reported In (2020) 10 Scc 706.
8. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Joshi requests this Court to allow the present application.
9. No other and further submissions as made.
10. Having heard learned Advocate Mr. Joshi for the petitioners, prima facie, it appears that the petitioners happens to be plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.249 of 2015, filed for partition of the ancestral property. The document which is Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:17:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16161/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined sought to be produced on record at the fag end of the trial of the suit would be property card, which is a public document. Further, it is pointed out to this Court that the document sought to be produced is a public document and its certified copy is submitted on record. The Trial Court appears to have rejected the impugned application filed below Exh.144 mainly on the ground that after long time and at the time of final arguments, such documents sought to be produced on record. The document which is sought to be produced on record appears to be a property card and once certified copy is submitted on record, being a public document, it is required to be received in evidence.
11. The Trial Court appears to have lost sight of Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, while adjudicating the impugned application filed below Exh.144. The said provision reads as under:
"A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit."
12. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugandhi (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that rule of procedure is handmaid of justice and a Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:17:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16161/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined hyper-technical approach requires to be avoided unless it causes serious prejudice. The relevant observation in the case of Sugandhi (supra) reads as under:
"[6] Rule 1-A of Order 8 of C.P.C. provides the procedure for production of documents by the defendant which is as under:
"1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.-
(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document-
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
[7] Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement. He must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written statement, Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:17:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16161/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined such a document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for crossexamination of the plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
[8] Sub-Rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.
[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)
13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court requires to have Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:17:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16161/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined allowed the impugned application filed below Exh.144. The document sought to be produced on record i.e. certified copy of property card of suit property in question is hereby allowed to be taken on record being a public document, and so also requires to be exhibited.
14. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar, below Exh.144 in Regular Civil Suit No.249 of 2015 is hereby quashed and set- aside. Accordingly, impugned application filed below Exh.144 in aforesaid suit is hereby allowed.
15. The Trial Court shall receive the property card in question, submitted by original plaintiffs on record of the suit by giving it exhibit. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall proceed further with the suit and decide it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
16. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, the present writ application requires to be partly allowed, which is hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Nilesh Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:17:02 IST 2025