SUBHASH RUPCHAND THAWANI THROUGH POA JAYA PREM THAWANI vs NIRMALADEVI RAGHUNATH RAI KAKHHAR

Court
Gujarat High Court

C/SCA/15475/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240752462026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15475 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUBHASH RUPCHAND THAWANI THROUGH POA JAYA PREM THAWANI
Versus
NIRMALADEVI RAGHUNATH RAI KAKHHAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 23/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Zubin F. Bharda, learned advocate for the
petitioner.
2. This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
“A. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow
this petition and quash and set aside the order dated 02.09.2026
passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham
(Annexure – I to this petition) and in turn be pleased to refer the
document Mark 139/4 which is the allotment letter dated
15.06.1995 (Annexure – F to this petition) produced by the
respondent no.2 along with its reply for examination by the FSL
and upon receipt of the report, be pleased to direct registration
of the FIR for the offence punishable under sections 316, 323,
351(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 19:35:44 IST 2026

C/SCA/15475/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240752462026)
officer of the respondent no.2 who are found to have committed
forgery.
B. Pending admission and/or final disposal of the petition, this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the order dated 02.09.2026
passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham
(Annexure – I to this petition) rejecting the application filed by
the petitioner Exh.141 praying for registration of offence
punishable under sections 316, 323, 351(2), and 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and for referring the document Mark
139/4 for examination by the FSL.
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition,
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the further proceedings of
Regular Civil Suit No.341/2017 (Old Special Civil Suit
No.19/2006) pending in the court of the Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Gandhidham.
D. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant such other and
further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
E. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to award cost of the
petition from the respondents.”
3. At the outset, it is pointed out to Mr. Bharda, learned
advocate for the petitioner, under which provision of law the
impugned application is filed by the petitioner before the Trial
Court. Mr. Bharda, learned advocate, would state that though
there is no express provision mentioned in the impugned
application, it was filed under Section 379 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, 2023.
4. This Court has further drawn attention of
Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for the petitioner, that in a case
where such application is not entertained by the Court
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 19:35:44 IST 2026

C/SCA/15475/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240752462026)
concerned as filed under Section 379 of BNSS, a statutory
remedy of appeal as provided under Section 380 of BNSS is
available to the applicant – petitioner herein.
5. Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for the petitioner, would
candidly accept such proposition and is not in a position to
dispute that there is no remedy of appeal available to the
petitioner against the impugned order. Nonetheless, Mr.
Bharda, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that
the order impugned in this petition is a non-speaking order
and this Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of Constitution of India to correct the
manifest error committed by the Trial Court while rejecting
the impugned application. This Court could have appreciated
the submission advanced by Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for
the petitioner, but when there is an alternative efficacious
statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, in view
of the following decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is
not inclined to entertain this petition.
1. Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma
Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society
reported in ( 2019) 9 SCC 538 .
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 19:35:44 IST 2026

C/SCA/15475/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240752462026)
2. Mohamed Ali vs. V. Jaya and others reported in
( 2022) 10 SCC 477.
6. As per the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court
and the law laid down thereon, it is now a well-settled position
of law that when there is an alternative statutory remedy of
appeal available to the petitioner against the order passed by
the Civil Court, this Court should not exercise its power
vested under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
7. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons, this
petition is not entertained by this Court only on the ground
that the petitioner can avail the alternative statutory remedy
of appeal by preferring an appeal under Section 380 of BNSS
against the order impugned in this petition. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed in limine .
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 19:35:44 IST 2026