KASHYAPKUMAR LALITKUMAR DAVE vs PRANAV MAHENDRABHAI BAROT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/12260/2026 (GJHC240594802026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12260 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KASHYAPKUMAR LALITKUMAR DAVE
Versus
PRANAV MAHENDRABHAI BAROT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY D ACHARYA(5637) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KAVAN K PATEL(11303) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PALAK D INAMDAR(5656) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 01/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. P.D. Inamdar, learned advocate and Mr. Ajay D.
Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India seeking following reliefs:
“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow the
present petition;
B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari
or any other appropriate writ/order/direction quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 passed
below Exh. 16 annexed at (ANNEXURE B) and Exh.17
(ANNEXURE D) for leave to defend application filed by
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 11:40:03 IST 2026
C/SCA/12260/2026 (GJHC240594802026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
respondents in SMST R No.53 of 2025 passed by the learned
8th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.7, Ahmedabad (Rural);
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay impugned order
dated 12.06.2026 passed below Exh.16 (annexed at
ANNEXURE - B) and Exh.17 (annexed at ANNEXURE - D) in
SMST R No.53 of 2025 passed by the learned 8th Additional
Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.7, Ahmedabad (Rural);
D. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari
any or other appropriate writ/order/direction quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 passed
below Exh.16 and Exh.17 for leave to defend application
filed by respondents in SMST R No.53 of 2025 passed by the
learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ahmedabad (Rural), annexed
at (ANNEXURE – B & D) and remand back the matter with a
direction to the Ld. Trial court to hear the same in
accordance with law;
E. YOUR LORDSHIPS grant ad-interim relief in terms of
paragraph (C) in the interest of Justice;
F. Such other and further reliefs as Your Lordships may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances be
granted;”
3. At the outset, Mr. Inamdar, learned advocate, would
submit that despite the objection raised by petitioner being
plaintiff of summary suit before the trial court that leave to
defend application is filed by the respondent beyond period of
limitation as prescribed under Order 37 of Code of Civil
Procedure Code (CPC), without considering such objection and
by way of non-speaking order, it has allowed the leave to
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 11:40:03 IST 2026
C/SCA/12260/2026 (GJHC240594802026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
defend application of the defendant.
3.1 It is submitted that while passing impugned order, the
trial court in fact recorded that learned advocate for the
defendant was absent and the learned advocate for the
plaintiff, i.e., petitioner, was present. Nonetheless, no
submissions of learned advocate for the plaintiff were recorded
by the trial court in its impugned order dated 12.06.2026.
4. Having heard Mr. Inamdar, learned advocate for the
petitioner, prima facie , it appears that impugned order dated
12.06.2026 passed by trial court in Summary Suit No.53 of
2025, whereby it appears to have granted leave to defend in
favour of the respondent-defendant though learned advocate
for the defendant was not present.
4.1 Apart from the aforesaid, it has been recorded by trial
court in its impugned order that learned advocate for the
plaintiff, i.e. petitioner herein, was present. But, the
submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner were not
recorded by the trial court and the impugned order appears
ex-facie to be a non-speaking one.
4.2 Without expressing further on merits, at this stage, I
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 11:40:03 IST 2026
C/SCA/12260/2026 (GJHC240594802026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
would like to relegate the petitioner to approach the trial court
by filing an appropriate application seeking recall/review of the
impugned order dated 12.06.2026, inasmuch as it is passed
without recording the submissions of the petitioner.
4.3 As and when such application will be filed by the
petitioner before the trial court concerned in the matter, after
giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, the
trial court is hereby directed to hear and decide such
application on merit as early as possible.
4.4 It is needless to say that while adjudicating such
application, trial court is requested to assign its reasons for
allowing/rejecting such application.
4.5 In a case where the trial court will not accept the prayer
of the petitioner as prayed for, it is always open for the
petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 12.06.2026
as well as any order which shall be passed by trial court upon
his application by way of appropriate proceeding before the
appropriate Court.
4.6 It is further made clear that this Court has neither gone
into nor examined the merits of the matter except what has
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 11:40:03 IST 2026
C/SCA/12260/2026 (GJHC240594802026) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
been observed hereinabove.
4.7 This Court is also conscious of the fact that the aforesaid
direction is issued by this Court without calling upon the
respondent, in such a situation, if the respondents are
aggrieved by aforesaid direction issued by this Court, upon
receipt of the copy of this order, within 15 days thereafter, the
respondents can file an appropriate application seeking
modification/seeking recalling of this order.
5. In view of the aforesaid direction, the present petition is
disposed of.
6. Direct Service is granted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
DEEPAK GEHLOT
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 11:40:03 IST 2026