Namdev Soneja vs. Rajendra Gupta

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the trial court was a non-speaking order, as it failed to assign any reasons for declining the relief sought by the petitioner. The Court noted that the trial court ought to have provided reasons for dismissing the application. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 2.4.2024 was set aside. The Trial Court was directed to decide the application afresh, affording an opportunity to both parties to present their case, and without being influenced by the previous order. The Court did not explicitly mention any specific GST provisions or rules being discussed, but the application itself was for calling GST records.

Facts

The petitioner, Namdev Soneja, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. The petition challenged an order dated 2.4.2024 passed by the 8th Civil Judge to First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior, in RCSA No.433A of 2020. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC seeking to call for records from the GST Department. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction. The petitioner sought to prove that the plaintiff's son was already employed by obtaining GST records for his business, Jimmy Fashion. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application without assigning any reasons.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court's order dismissing the petitioner's application to call for GST records was a non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the trial court's order was non-speaking and lacked any reasons for dismissing the application, which is contrary to established legal principles. The petitioner sought to obtain GST records to prove that the plaintiff's son was already employed, which was crucial for the defense in the eviction suit. Respondent's contention: The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the trial court's order but fairly conceded that the trial court had failed to assign any reasons for dismissing the application.