Leave to defend granted without recording opposing submissions requires reasoned reconsideration by the trial court.

The petitioner, plaintiff in Summary Suit No. 53 of 2025 before the 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), challenged the trial court’s order dated 12 June 2026 passed below Exhibits 16 and 17, by which the respondents’ applications for leave to defend were allowed.

The petitioner contended that the leave-to-defend applications were filed beyond the limitation prescribed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the trial court had failed to consider this objection.

It was further submitted that although the trial court recorded the presence of the petitioner’s advocate and the absence of the defendants’ advocate, it did not record the petitioner’s submissions and passed a non-speaking order.

The petitioner therefore invoked Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order and remand of the matter.

1. Whether the trial court’s order granting leave to defend was liable to be interfered with because it failed to record or consider the submissions of the plaintiff’s advocate and was consequently non-speaking.

2. Whether the petitioner should first approach the trial court by filing an application for recall/review of the impugned order before seeking further supervisory relief under Article 227.

3. Whether the respondents’ leave-to-defend applications were barred by limitation under Order XXXVII of the CPC.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It considered the procedural framework governing summary suits and applications for leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court applied the principle that a judicial order must be reasoned and must reflect consideration of the submissions of the parties, particularly where the court records the presence of a party’s advocate but does not deal with that party’s contentions; an ex facie non-speaking order may warrant reconsideration.

The Court did not decide the limitation objection or any other substantive issue on merits.

Prima facie, the High Court found that the trial court had granted leave to defend despite the absence of the defendants’ advocate, while also failing to record the submissions of the petitioner’s advocate, whose presence was noted in the order.

This omission rendered the order ex facie non-speaking and justified requiring reconsideration by the trial court.

Rather than adjudicating the limitation objection or examining the merits under Order XXXVII, the High Court directed the petitioner to file an appropriate recall/review application before the trial court.

The trial court was required to hear all concerned parties, decide the application on merits at the earliest, and provide reasons for accepting or rejecting it.

The High Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the dispute.

The petitioner was permitted to approach the trial court by filing an appropriate application seeking recall/review of the order dated 12 June 2026.

The trial court was directed to hear all parties, decide the application expeditiously and by a reasoned order.

If the trial court declined the relief, the petitioner remained free to challenge the original order and the subsequent order in appropriate proceedings.

The respondents were also granted liberty to seek modification or recall of the High Court’s directions within 15 days of receiving the order.

Direct service was granted.