Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Chaturbhai Prajapati C/O ... vs Minaxiben Wd/O Rasiklal Tilakram on 14 June, 2022
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
C/SCA/12436/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12436 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12436 of 2019
====================================================
RAMESHBHAI CHATURBHAI PRAJAPATI C/O
SATYANARAYANA TRADERS
Versus
MINAXIBEN WD/O RASIKLAL TILAKRAM
====================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIV B SHAH(2678) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
for the Respondent(s) No. 9
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8
MR. NAKUL PRADHAN, FOR MR KOMAL M PATEL(8153) for the
Respondent(s) No. 5
MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Respondent(s) No. 11
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 10
====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 14/06/2022
ORAL ORDER
[1.0.] By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners - original defendant Nos.2 to 7 have challenged the order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below application Exhibit - 105 in Special Civil Suit No.391 of 2001, whereby the petitioners requested the Court vide Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 15 21:25:07 IST 2022 C/SCA/12436/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2022 application Exhibit - 105 to dismiss the Suit and initiate appropriate action against the plaintiffs for not complying with the order dated 18.08.2017 and / or order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.24144 of 2011 and allied matters, in the interest of justice, to the extent so far as prayer to dismiss the suit not entertained.
[2.0.] Mr. Parthiv Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, drawing attention of the Court to the various orders passed by the Supreme Court in the present proceedings including the order dated 07.01.2019, whereby the Supreme Court has passed a conditional order enlarging the time to deposit the sum within four weeks from that day, as mentioned in the order, directing the plaintiffs to pursue his defence on the deposit of the sum, so said by the Supreme Court in various orders, within time permitted or else his defence shall stand struck off, came to be passed, therefore he has submitted that when the right of the plaintiffs to pursue his defence i.e. lead evidence in support of the suit, is struck off, nothing remains in the suit, and therefore, essentially suit should have been dismissed.
[3.0.] Considering the submissions as aforesaid as also the various orders passed by the Supreme Court, in no order Supreme Court directed dismissal of a suit on failure to comply with the conditions mentioned in Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 15 21:25:07 IST 2022 C/SCA/12436/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2022 those orders. Therefore, merely because plaintiffs are restrained from leading any evidence as their right to pursue their defence is struck off, the suit cannot be dismissed straightaway and if it is so simple, the petitioners would have requested the Supreme Court to pass an order for dismissal of the suit itself.
Though in an application Exhibit-105, no prayer is made to consider the order dated 07.01.2019, since said order was passed subsequent to the application Exhibit-105 filed by the petitioners, it has already been considered by the Trial Court while rejecting the application Exhibit-105 in part. Though the parties requested to consider the fact that amount as ordered by the Supreme Court has been deposited, may be in part either principal or even interest thereon, I would not entertain such plea of either of the side as the suit is still at large, so as to avoid prejudicing rights and contentions of either side. [4.0.] At any rate, once the Trial Court by impugned order, allowed the prayer in part so far as striking off defence i.e. right to lead evidence by the plaintiffs , I see no reason to interfere in the same on a specious plea that suit should have been dismissed as nothing remains to be gone into further, that too, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is rejected. Notice, if any, discharged. Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 15 21:25:07 IST 2022
C/SCA/12436/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2022 In view of disposal of the main Special Civil Application, the connected Civil Applications stand disposed of.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) Lalji Desai Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 15 21:25:07 IST 2022