'Judicial Dishonesty': Gujarat High Court Disapproves Of Trial Court Keeping Suit Pending Despite Completion Of Submissions By Parties

The Gujarat High Court recently expressed its disapproval with trial court in not pronouncing judgment in a suit despite parties completing their submissions, adjourning the matter on succssive dates for "further arguments". 

This the court said was "judicial dishonesty" on the part of the trial court in not pronouncing the verdict. The high court further warned the trial court not to keep matters pending for pronouncement of judgment beyond reasonable period after completion of submissions. 

The court was hearing a company's plea challenging trial court's order rejecting its request to lead evidence in order to produce a board resolution for the institution of the recovery suit filed by the company. 

Justice Devan M Desai in his order noted that the trial court had since April 5, 2025 not pronounced the judgment in the suit despite parties completing their arguments and had kept on granting adjournments listing the matter for "further arguments". 

"At this stage, I am compelled to make a note that the learned Court below since 5.4.2025 has not pronounced the judgment in Summary Civil Suit No. 392 of 2021. The Rojkam produced on record indicates that except granting adjournments, the proceedings have not been put to an end. Learned advocate for the respondent has also submitted that the final submission has already been concluded on 5.4.2025 and no further submissions were sought to be canvassed on behalf of the defendant. However, Rojkam indicates “further argument.” When both the parties have concluded their final submission, there is no reason for the Court below to post the proceedings for further arguments. This is judicial dishonesty on the part of learned Court below in not pronouncing judgment till today," the court said.  

It further said, "The concerned learned Judicial Officer is warned not to keep matters pending for pronouncement of judgment beyond reasonable period of time after conclusion of final submission of parties". 

The petitioner–private company filed a suit against respondent for a recovery of Rs.3,99,736 with interest @ 18%. Meghjibhai Kunvarjeebhai Khetani is the Director of the petitioner company who signed and verified the plaint. The proceedings of the suit was posted for the pronouncement of the judgment. Due to an oversight the Board Resolution for the institution of the suit as well as giving authority to the Director to initiate legal proceedings could not be passed at the time of the institution of the suit. Thus, a Resolution dated March 31, 2025 was prepared and produced before the trial court.

A request was made that the stage of leading evidence on behalf of the plaintiff (petitioner) be reopened for the purpose of production of the resolution. It was argued that the trial court took a hyper-technical view and rejected the application. It was submitted that the Board Resolution is a vital piece of evidence and if not permitted to be produced it would create great injustice to the petitioner who would be deprived of its legitimate right to recover the amount claimed in the plaint.

The respondent Bank of India contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up lacuna by permitting the petitioner to lead evidence. It is submitted that cross-examination of plaintiff - Director was concluded on November 3, 2023 and a specific question was put to the said witness with regard to the Resolution, if any, passed in favour of the Director before the institution of the suit. The witness has, in clear terms, admitted that no resolution was passed authorizing the witness to lead evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner's evidence was closed on March 5, 2024.

It was submitted that evidence of respondent-defendant was concluded on August 17, 2024 and thereafter submissions were also concluded. The suit was kept for pronouncement of judgment on April 5, 2025 and it was after this date that the petitioner filed application. It was argued that if at the stage of pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner's application is allowed it would create great injustice and the important right of defense would be lost. 

The court said that the fact that there is no resolution authorizing the witness to institute the suit and to pursue the suit was within the knowledge of the witness who is claiming to be the Director of the company. 

"The conduct of the plaintiff - company and its Director speaks volume. Since 3-11- 2023, plaintiff was well within the knowledge that the suit is instituted without any resolution being passed by the Board of Directors. The plaintiff allowed the proceedings to proceed further and when the proceedings reached at the stage of pronouncement of the judgment, the plaintiff passed a resolution dated 31-03-2025 authorizing Managing Director, Mr. Meghjibhai Kunvarjeebhai Khetani to pursue Summary Civil Suit No.392 of 2021. The provisions of law expects a resolution to be passed before the institution of the suit and not during the pendency of the suit authorizing the Director to pursue the suit proceedings," the court said. 

The court said that any post-suit resolution authorizing a Director / Managing Director of the Company to pursue suit proceedings is of no importance. The court said that even if the resolution  is permitted to be produced on record, the inherent lacuna in the suit would not be cured since the resolution is passed pending the suit.

"Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served if the plaintiff is permitted to produce the said resolution," the court said. 

However, "keeping in view the sorry state of affairs", the court directed the trial court to pronounce judgment in the suit within 3 days from recieving copy of high court's order.

The petition was dismissed. 

Case title: PATEL INN AND TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED v/s  BANK OF INDIA 

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15335 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order