M/S Mahdele Motors vs. M/S Raghvendra Singh
Held
The High Court held that the trial court ought to have allowed the application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the trial court had previously granted liberty to the plaintiff to produce documents in rebuttal during his evidence, and the application was filed for this specific purpose. The Court found that rejecting the application on the grounds of delay was an illegality, especially since the documents were not being supplied by the department and their summoning would not prejudice the defendant. The Court further noted that the documents could be helpful to the court in understanding the disputes. Consequently, the impugned order of the trial court rejecting the application was set aside, and the application was allowed.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mahdele Motors, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 16.9.2026 passed by the trial court. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to summon documents from the GST Department. The rejection was primarily based on delay, noting the suit had been pending for three years. The petitioner argued that the trial court had previously granted liberty to produce rebuttal documents during evidence, and these documents were necessary for that purpose. The petitioner also contended that summoning these documents would not prejudice the defendant and would assist the court in understanding the dispute.
Key Issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for summoning documents from the GST Department, considering the prior liberty granted to produce rebuttal evidence? The petitioner argued that the application was filed to produce rebuttal documents, for which the trial court had previously granted liberty. They contended that the documents were not being supplied by the department, necessitating the application. They also argued that summoning the documents would not prejudice the defendant and would be helpful for the court. The revenue or State's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Order 13 Rule 10
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 16.9.2026 (Annexure-P-8) passed by the trial court, in so far as his application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for calling certain documents from the GST Department has been rejected.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application has been rejected primarily on the ground of delay, stating that the said exercise could have been done earlier also, and that the suit has remained pending for past three years.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that by order dated 24.1.2026, the trial court had itself granted liberty to the plaintiff to produce documents in rebuttal during his evidence, and it is for that purpose only that the documents are being sought to be summoned. They are not 1 MP-6148-2026 NEUTRAL CIT
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.