CHIMANBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL vs MOMIN GULABALI NURMAHMAD
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/17011/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240843442026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17011 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
CHIMANBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL
Versus
MOMIN GULABALI NURMAHMAD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 05/11/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner as
also Mr. B.A.Surti, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Kunal S. Shah,
learned advocate for respondent No.3 – Caveator.
2. At the outset, Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner,
would request this Court to allow the petitioner to amend the date of
filing of the suit, which is wrongly written as 29.09.2025 instead of
28.12.2010. The permission, as prayed for, is granted. The necessary
amendment as regard the date of filing of the suit in the petition,
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:42:43 IST 2026
C/SCA/17011/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240843442026)
including prayer clause, shall be carried out by the petitioner forthwith.
3. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following reliefs:-
“ a. Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition.
b. Your Lordships be pleased to hold that the Ld. Adnl. Senior Civil
Judge, Dholka Dist: Ahmedabad to decide application exh. 622
[Annexure-B] and exh. 624 [Annexure-C] in the Sp. Civil Suit No. 933 of
2010 before hearing the final arguments in the case.
c. Your Lordships be pleased order that the further hearing of Sp. Civil
Suit No. 933 of 2010 Dt. 28-12-2010 by Ld. Adnr. Senior Civil Judge,
Dholka Dist : Ahmedabad be stayed pending admission, hearing and
final disposal of this petition.
d. Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may be
deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. At the outset, Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner,
would submit that by way of impugned application filed below Exhibit-
622 by the petitioner and Exhibit-624 filed by respondent No.3, it is
requested to the Trial Court to de-exhibit the documents /evidence
which are not proved by the parties concerned. It is submitted that
despite such applications filed in the month of March 2026, until date,
the impugned applications are not heard and decided by the Trial Court,
which ought to have decided prior to final hearing/arguments of the
suit.
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:42:43 IST 2026
C/SCA/17011/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240843442026)
4.1 According to Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, the
documents sought to be de-exhibited are not proved by the respondent
No.3, and the order passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit-279
whereby the documents were exhibited, but subject to it is proved. It is
further submitted that since the respondent No.3-defendant No.3 failed
to prove those documents, the Trial Court ought to have de-exhibited
the documents and required to decide the impugned applications at the
first instance before going for final hearing.
4.2 Mr. Dave, learned advocate would submit that as per Order XIII
Rule 3 of CPC, it is bounden duty of the Trial Court to reject the
inadmissible document, and such power can be exercised by the Trial
Court at any stage of proceeding.
4.3 Mr. Dave, learned advocate would rely upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Sangeetha & Ors. Vs. TMT P
Ponni reported in 2026 AIR (SC) 3723 .
4.4 Thus, by making the above submissions, Mr. Dave, learned
advocate, would request this Court to entertain this petition and direct
the Trial Court to adjudicate the impugned applications filed below
Exhibit-622 and Exhibit-624 before proceed with the final hearing of
the suit.
5. Per contra , Mr. B.A. Surti, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Kunal
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:42:43 IST 2026
C/SCA/17011/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240843442026)
Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.3 has opposed this petition,
contending inter alia that since the applications are filed by the
respective parties, including the petitioner, and in fact the matter is
reached at the stage of final arguments before the Trial Court and
matter is kept tomorrow for hearing of the suit, this Court may not
interfere at this stage.
5.1 It is submitted that once the document has been exhibited by the
Trial Court at the first instance, maybe subject to its proof/proved, the
insistence on the part of the petitioner to strike out such documents by
placing reliance upon Order XIII Rule 3 is uncalled for. It is further
submitted that it is the discretion of the Trial Court to hear and decide
the impugned applications along with the hearing of the suit, and this
Court may not entertain this petition by granting relief as prayed for.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the documents annexed therewith, prima facie , it
appears that petitioner happens to be plaintiff of suit in question, filed
impugned application below Exhibit-622 to de-exhibit some of the
documentary evidence submitted by the respondent No.3-defendant
No.3, and the application is fixed for hearing by the Trial Court on
25.03.2026. Likewise, the respondent No.3- defendant No.3 also filed
similar type of application below Exhibit-624 to de-exhibit the
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:42:43 IST 2026
C/SCA/17011/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240843442026)
documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner- plaintiff. Both these
applications are yet to be heard and decided by the Trial Court.
7. So far as exhibiting the documents submitted by respondent No.3
is concerned, it was exhibited by the Trial Court pursuant to its order
dated 11.06.2025 passed below Exhibit-279 in the suit. A bare perusal of
the said order would indicate that documents are exhibited subject to its
proof/ to be proved. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.3
failed to prove such documents and, therefore, they should be de-
exhibited.
8. It is settled position of law that once the document has been
exhibited, it cannot be de-exhibited later on. Once the order is passed by
the Trial Court of exhibiting the document, at that point of time itself
the aggrieved party should challenge such order. As per the decision of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javer Chand & Ors. v. Pukhraj
Surana , reported in AIR 1961 SC 1655 , wherein this aspect has been
clarified, which reads thus:
"4.…………….Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in
the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that
the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the
parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses,
s. 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:42:43 IST 2026
C/SCA/17011/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240843442026)
has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either
to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go
behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial
orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same
Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction. …..."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Apart from the aforesaid aspect of the case, once the Trial Court
has exercised its discretion by exhibiting the document, it would not be
fathomable to accept the argument advanced by Mr. Dave, learned
advocate for the petitioner, that Trial Court ought to have exercised its
discretion under Order XIII Rule 3 of CPC by rejecting those exhibited
documents, inasmuch as once the Court found the document prima
facie not irrelevant or inadmissible and it has given exhibit, at this
juncture, it would be inappropriate for the Trial Court to reject the
documents. Nevertheless, the discretion available to the Court to reject
the irrelevant or inadmissible document at any stage of the suit is
concerned, such discretion is left with the Trial Court and party cannot
insist that Trial Court should exercise such discretion at particular stage,
i.e., prior to opening up of final hearing of the suit.
10. According to me, insistence of the petitioner-plaintiff that both
these impugned applications are required to be decided first by the Trial
Court is not palatable and cannot be accepted, otherwise it would
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:42:43 IST 2026
C/SCA/17011/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240843442026)
amount to overreaching the process of law and interference of the
discretion of the Trial Court. At least, such right is not expressly given to
the parties under the CPC. Even the word used “at any stage” under
Order XIII Rule 3 would include at the stage of final hearing of the suit
and/or at the time of pronouncement of the final judgment. According
to my view, the Trial Court is well within its right to exercise its
discretion to decide the impugned applications in accordance with law
at appropriate stage of the suit.
11. The decision pressed into service by Mr. Dave, learned advocate
for the petitioner, is not at all applicable to the case at hand; rather, it is
not helpful to the case of the petitioner.
12. According to me, to avoid more such round of litigation, it is more
desirable that the Trial Court shall decide the issue raised in the
impugned applications while finally adjudicating the lis between the
parties. It is hereby observed that the Trial Court should not influenced
by any observations made herein above while adjudicating the
impugned applications but it should decide it in accordance with law.
13. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, I am of the
considered view that the present petition is nothing but a feeble attempt
on the part of the petitioner, who prima facie is trying to delay the
proceeding instituted by him. It is also noticed by this Court that an
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:42:43 IST 2026
C/SCA/17011/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240843442026)
application was filed by the petitioner to transfer his suit proceeding
from one Court to another, and until such would happen, by way of this
impugned application, the petitioner is trying to delay the outcome of
the suit proceeding. Of course, in his attempt, the petitioner was not
successful, as his transfer application was dismissed by the District
Court.
14. In view of the forgoing reasons and conclusion, this petition is
found meritless. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:42:43 IST 2026