C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 Reserved On : - Pronounced On : 11/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15585 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓ ========================================================== BHANUBEN BHIKHALAL MAKWANA & ORS. Versus HEIRS OF ISHWARLAL GULABCHAND DHOLAKIA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT CAV JUDGMENT 1. The present application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 24.07.2018 passed by the Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Junagadh below Exh.80 in Special Civil Suit no.22 of 2006, so far as it rejection of plea of petitioners to give Exhibit numbers to the document produced at Mark-4/1, 4/13, 4/14 at Annexure-A and further be pleased to direct the Ld. Judge to decide the application of petitioners at C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 Exh.81 at Annexure-D colly., in the interest of justice; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special Civil Suit no.22 of 2006 pending in the court of Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Junagadh, pending admission, hearing of present petition, in the interest of justice; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of Justice;” 2. As far as possible, the parties will be referred to as per their original position before the Trial Court. 3. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE: 3.1 The petitioners herein are original plaintiffs who instituted a Special Civil Suit No.22 of 2006 against respondents herein, which is now pending before Principal Senior Civil Judge at Jamnagar. It appears that original plaintiff – Bhikhalal Nanjibhai Makwana, the predecessor of petitioners herein, have entered into an agreement for sale with original defendant - Sri Ishwarlal Gulabchand Dholakia in relation to suit property which is described in para 2 of the plaint. 3.2 The defendant, having not executed the sale deed as C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 per terms for agreement to sale, the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit seeking performance of such agreement for sale and also prayed for injunction as prayed in the plaint. 3.3 It appears that certain documents which are submitted by plaintiffs with their documentary list at Exhibit 4, 29, 31, and 36 are not the original documents and claimed to have been lost by plaintiffs, so an application below Exhibit 80 came to be filed on 20.12.2017 to get it exhibited. 3.4 It further appears that plaintiffs have also simultaneously filed another application below Exhibit 81 on 20.12.2017, thereby requested the Trial Court to consider said documents produced with list at Exhibit 4, 29, 31, and 36 as secondary evidence as per Section 63 of Evidence Act. 3.5 The defendants have objected the impugned application filed below Exhibit 80, raising a plea that document at mark 4/1 and 4/3 are required to be properly stamped, and having not duly stamped, it is required to be first impounded and so, it cannot be exhibited as prayed for by plaintiffs. Page 3 of 13 C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 3.6 After hearing the parties, the Trial Court, vide its order dated 24.07.2018, has partly allowed the impugned application whereby ordered to give tentative exhibit to documents produced at marks 4/2 to 4/12, 29/1 to 29/4, 31/1 as well as 36/1. 3.7 It has been further observed that documents produced at mark 4/13 and 4/14 were already ordered to be exhibited and therefore, again it cannot be ordered to exhibit the same. 3.8 So far as other documents, which is produced at mark 4/1 i.e., agreement for sale, the same is not ordered to be given tentative exhibit on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped then, would not receive in evidence. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the plaintiffs have challenged the same by way of the present application. 5. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS – PLAINTIFFS. 5.1 Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the impugned order is bad in law and, having been passed contrary to provisions of law, C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 requires to be interfered with by this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5.2 Mr. Jasani, learned advocate, would submit that there are two applications filed by plaintiffs below Exhibit 80 and 81 and, considering the prayers made in their respective applications, the Trial Court ought to have first decided the application filed below Exhibit 81, but committed a serious error of procedure by first deciding the impugned application filed below Exhibit 80. 5.3 Mr. Jasani, learned advocate, would submit that there was a mistake on the part of court staff in giving exhibit to respective applications filed by the plaintiffs on the same day, which has ultimately resulted into passing of the impugned order first in the impugned application without deciding the application so filed below Exhibit 81, which is still pending as on today before the Trial Court. 5.4 Mr. Jasani, learned advocate, would further submit that the order impugned is not legible and would not be clear on which ground the impugned application came to be partly C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 allowed and as such, the Trial Court ought to have first decided the application filed below Exhibit 81, as the documents, which are ordered to be given tentative exhibit, requires to have been treated as a secondary evidence and, having not done so, committed a serious error of law. 5.5 Mr. Jasani, learned advocate, would further submit that petitioners were not aware about passing of the impugned order at given point of time, but when this Court has disposed of Special Civil Application No.15372 of 2018 on 03.09.2024, then after, while checking the record, it came to the notice of plaintiffs that the Trial Court has already decided the impugned application by the impugned order. So, as such, there is no delay on the part of petitioners to challenge the order impugned in the present application. 5.6 Making the above submission, Mr. Jasani, learned advocate, would request this Court to allow the present application. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pratik Y. Jasani appearing for the petitioners – plaintiffs at length. No other and further C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 submissions are being made. 7. ANALYSIS 8. Before adverting to the issue germane in the present application, it is required to be noted that the order impugned in the present application was passed by the Trial Court on 24.07.2018, whereas the impugned order, which was challenged by way of present application, was filed on 25.10.2024. There is a delay of more than six years in challenging the order impugned, which is not satisfactorily explained. 8.1 It is stated by plaintiffs that when this Court has disposed of their Special Civil Application No.15372 of 2018 on 03.09.2024 then after, they came to know about the impugned order. Such explanation is nothing but an afterthought and an excuse on the part of plaintiffs to come out from their inaction, delay and laches in challenging the impugned order. 8.2 It is required to be observed that said application came to be filed on 25.09.2018 before this Court against not granting relief by the Trial Court in an application filed below C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 Exhibit 93 on 21.08.2018. So, when plaintiffs having so filed an application below Exhibit 93 on 21.08.2018, it would not be conceivable and hard to believe that plaintiffs were not aware about the order impugned in the present application which was passed by the Trial Court on 24.07.2018. 8.3 It is now well settled legal position of law that if a litigant remains indolent for years and does not challenges an order passed by the Court or the authority, as the case may be, the High Court, in exercising either its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not exercise its discretion in favour of such indolent litigant. 8.4 It would be apposite to refer and rely upon the decision of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board versus T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, wherein it has been held thus:- “13. First, we shall deal with the facet of delay. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [AIR 1969 SC 329] the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. Page 8 of 13 C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 v. Hurd [Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd, (1874) LR 5 PC 221] , which is as follows: (Balwant Regular Motor Service case [AIR 1969 SC 329] , AIR pp. 335-36, para 11) “11. … ‘Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in, either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy.’ (Lindsay Petroleum Co. case [Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd, (1874) LR 5 PC 221] , PC pp. 239-40)” 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 8.5 Likewise, in a case of State of Orissa versus Lakshman Narayan Das, reported in (2023) 15 SCC 273, wherein also after taking note of several previous decisions, the Honorable Apex Court would held that when there is a delay and laches on the part of petitioners in challenging the application or order, the High Court should not entertain a writ application. [See Laxshaman Narayan Das (supra) from Para 23 to 33] 8.6 Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and principle enunciated by Honourable Supreme Court of India by above referred decisions, the present application requires to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches in challenging the impugned order. 9. Even looking at order impugned in the present application, this Court would not find any gross error of law, procedural irregularity and/or jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court while partly allowing the impugned application. 10. It appears to be an afterthought on the part of plaintiffs C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 to contend that the Trial Court ought to have first decided an application filed below Exhibit 81 and then after it could have decided the impugned application. When plaintiffs have consciously filed the impugned application and having filed their written argument at Exhibit 89 in support of their impugned application, there was no whisper of any request made to Trial Court to first decide the application filed below Exhibit 81. 11. Now, when the Trial Court has decided the impugned application, plaintiffs cannot cry foul that the Trial Court has committed any procedural irregularity or illegality while deciding the impugned application. 12. As such, the Trial Court has passed an impugned order, thereby, ordered a tentative exhibit to documents except a document which is not duly stamped and may not be received in evidence due to insufficient stamp. In fact, plaintiffs have filed an application below Exhibit 93 on 21.08.2018 to impound the documents produced at Mark 4/1 and 4/3. So, no fault can be found with the Trial Court when it has not given C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 tentative exhibit to document produced at Mark 4/1. 13. Mr. Jasani, learned advocate, during the course of his argument informed this Court that till date, the Trial Court had not decided the application filed below Exhibit 81. 14. The prayer made in the application filed below Exhibit 81 is to treat the documents which are now ordered to be given tentative exhibit as a secondary evidence. According to this Court, outcome of the decision of Trial Court while passing any order in the application filed below Exhibit 81 would not have a direct bearing to the order impugned in present application as plaintiffs would require to prove contents of each document which are given tentative exhibits in accordance with law. 15. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to only observe that the Trial Court is required to independently decide the application filed below Exhibit 81 without being influenced by any of the observations so made hereinabove if so far not decided by Trial Court. 16. In these circumstances, in view of the well-settled legal C/SCA/15585/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 position of law, this Court would not like to interfere with the order impugned in the present application while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India otherwise to be sparingly exercised. [See Sameer Suresh Gupta TR PA Holder vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 374 (Para 6 and 7) and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 (Para 15 and 16)] 17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the present application fails on two counts, i.e., delay and laches as well as lacking merits. 18. CONCLUSION 19. The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, I am of the view that the present application requires to be dismissed, which is hereby DISMISSED. No order as to costs. (MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MOHD MONIS(HC01900), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/06/2025 13:28:44