M/S INTEC FRP PRODUCTS & ORS. v. AMBICA ENTERPRISE & ORS.

Judgment

#1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. P. M. Buch, learned advocate for respondents waives service of notice of rule.

#2. The present application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “(a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari and.or any other writ, quashing and setting C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 aside the impugned order below Exh. 31 dated

02.08.2022 at Annexure-A and subsequent order dated

19.08.2023 at Annexure-X in Civil Suit No. 1825 of 2019 and in MCA No. 731 of 2022 respectively passed by the Learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. (b) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order below Exh. 31 dated 02.08.2022 at Annexure-A and subsequent order dated 19.08.2023 at Annexure-X in Civil Suit No. 1825 of 2019 and in MCA No. 731 of 2022 respectively passed by the Learned City Civil Court. Ahmedabad. (c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the parties to maintain the status quo, so far as suit property is concerned. (d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding and call for the records of the Civil Suit No. 1825 of 2019 pending before the Learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. (e) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order or orders as may be deemed fit just and proper considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025

#3. The parties will be referred to as per their original

position before the Trial Court.

#4. SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE:-

4.1 The petitioners herein are original defendants, whereas petitioner No.1-defendant No.1 is a partnership – firm, namely, M/s INTEC FRP Products (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”) and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 – defendant nos.2 to 4 are the partners of defendant No.1. On the other hand, respondents herein are original plaintiffs and respondent No.1 – plaintiff no.1, namely, Ambika Enterprises is a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff”) and respondent Nos.2 and 3 – plaintiff nos.2 and 3 are the partners of plaintiff.

4.2 It is a case of plaintiffs that the suit plot situated at plot No.560, Phase-II, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short “GIDC”), Vatva, Ahmedabad owned by plaintiff No.1-firm. C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025

4.3 The suit plot was given to defendant on leave and license basis, which was executed in the year 2013 and was renewed from time to time and subsequently lease agreement executed for 3 years which was expired on 30.06.2019.

4.4 As per the agreement executed between the parties, defendant was required to pay Rs.50,000/- per month to plaintiff as Rent to plaintiff. After the period of agreement got over, on 15.10.2019, plaintiff had sent notice to defendant to vacate the suit plot, which was responded by defendant vide its letter dated 21.11.2019, which was signed by petitioner No.3 - defendant No.3, wherein she has played ignorance regarding execution of any leave and lincence/lease agreement executed between plaintiff and defendant, rather claimed that defendant its own expenses put up a construction built factory building and also installed machineries on the suit plot, thereby disowned the notice.

4.5 Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, plaintiffs have instituted Civil Suit No.1825 of 2019 seeking relief of C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 possession of suit plot, sought for arrears of license fee till the date of filing of suit as well as mesne profit. The defendants appear to have filed the written statement, thereby contested the suit.

4.6 The plaintiffs appear to have initially filed an application below Exhibit 19 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) on

08.03.2021 praying for license fee from October, 2018 to

31.01.2021 @ Rs.50,000/- per month, whereby requested the Trial Court to direct defendant to deposit Rs.28,00,000/- in the Court as licence fee. The defendants have filed their objections / reply below Exhibit 26 against such application. Before it heard, plaintiff appears to have not pressed its application filed at Exhibit 19, thereby the Trial Court disposed of said application vide its order dated 20.04.2022.

4.7 It further appears that during pendency of aforesaid application filed at Exhibit 19, plaintiffs have filed impugned application below Exhibit 31, whereby requested Trial Court to C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 direct defendant to deposit Rs.50,000/- per month as license fee till final disposal of suit. It appears that defendants have not filed any separate reply to impugned application. Nonetheless, they have filed a purshish below Exhibit 33 on

05.01.2022, thereby requested the Trial Court to treat their reply filed below Exhibit 26 as a reply to the impugned application.

4.8 After hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 02.08.2022 has allowed the impugned application, thereby directed the defendants to deposit Rs.50,000/- per month before the Nazir of the Trial Court till disposal of the suit. It has also been observed that plaintiff is not allowed to withdraw such amount.

4.9 The defendants, having aggrieved by the impugned order, have preferred the present application.

4.10 This Court, while issuing notice, has specifically observed in its order dated 25.01.2024 that the petitioners shall continue to comply with the direction given by Trial C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 Court, without any default. It has been informed to this Court that such order is not complied with by petitioners though no stay has been granted.

4.11 It is required to be noted here that the present application was filed through a lawyer, but thereafter, his appearance was withdrawn from the matter by the petitioners, and petitioner No.2 and No.3 appeared in person and argued this matter.

#5. SUBMISSION OF PETITIONERS – PARTY-IN-PERSON

5.1 Mr. Deepakumar Manuprasad Pandya - petitioner No.2 and Ms. Hardi Deepak Pandya - petitioner No.3, having appeared in person, submitted that impugned application is bad in law, contrary to provisions of CPC, and so requires to be quashed and set aside.

5.2 Parties in person would further submit that plaintiff is not the owner of suit plot, but the real owner of the suit plot is GIDC, who has initially given the suit plot on lease to M/s C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 Dwarkadhish Industries for a term of 99 years on 23.12.1993, which was then transferred in favour of plaintiff on

22.05.2009.

5.3 Parties in person would further submit that the suit plot was an open plot, and defendant - firm, put up a construction built factory building by incurred expenditure on its own and so also installed machinery, whereby started its business. So, plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the suit.

5.4 Parties in person would further submit that at given point of time in the year 2008, the plaintiff had entered into one Memorandum of Understanding with M/s NC Erectors (Gujarat) Private Limited on 13.12.2008. The parties have decided to share the amount received from defendant firm. It is submitted that in the MoU, it has been so clearly stated that factory shed was built by M/s NC Erectors (Gujarat) Private Limited, who happens to be one of the partners of defendant - firm, and the factory shed is given to defendant to carry on its C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 business. Thus, plaintiffs have no right to claim any mesne profit.

5.5 Parties in person would further submit that the said M/s NC Erectors (Gujarat) Private Limited was retired from defendant - firm, and plaintiff was inducted as its partner on

01.04.2009, but later on retired from defendant firm with effect from 01.04.2012, and as such, could not have claimed any amount from defendant.

5.6 Parties in person would further submit that plaintiff has no right to enter into so-called leave and license and/or lease agreement with defendant, as plaintiff has not taken any prior approval from GIDC to enter into such agreement. It is submitted that plaintiff has violated condition of lease as well as circular of GIDC, which would disentitle plaintiff to claim any amount as prayed in the impugned application, and as such, not entitled to get main relief of possession.

5.7 The Parties in person would further submit and rely upon Rent Regulation Notification No. GIDC/LAW/AMD-4 (for C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 short “GIDC Notification”), whereby contended that before giving any plot by leaseholder to any third party, prior permission / approval of GIDC is required, which was not obtained by the plaintiff in the present case.

5.8 Parties in person would lastly submit that impugned application is barred by the principle of Res judicata and so also barred by provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC.

5.9 Parties in person would further submit that plaintiff has not pressed its earlier application filed below Exhibit 19, then impugned application was not maintainable.

5.10 To buttress their arguments, Parties in person would rely upon the decision as per their submission filed along with their affidavit in rejoinder, which are as under:- (i) M/s Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited vs. Amit Chand Mitra and Anr. Reported in AIR 2023 SC 4658. (ii) My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 Society vs. Mahesh and Ors. Reported in 2022 INSC 853.

5.11 Making the above submission, Parties in person would request this Court to allow the present writ application.

#6. Submission of the Respondents – Plaintiffs

6.1 Mr. P.M. Buch, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs, would submit that this Court may not entertain the present writ application as defendant has not complied with the order passed by this Court on 25.01.2024 and till late, no amount has been deposited by the defendant in the Trial Court as ordered.

6.2 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would submit that GIDC notification referred to by the petitioners would not be applicable to the facts of the present case because, as per Clause 2 of the said notification, it is clearly mentioned that rent regulation would not apply to a property which is disposed by GIDC by way of long term lease of 99 years and C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 above. As in the present case undisputedly, plaintiffs’ predecessor have been given suit plot by GIDC on a long-term lease, i.e., 99 years.

6.3 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would further submit that defendant has not only executed leave and license/lease agreement with plaintiff in the year, 2013, which was later on renewed from time to time, but as per the agreement also made payment to plaintiff till September, 2018. It is submitted that petitioner–defendant No.3 could not have disowned such agreement and payment made by defendant to plaintiff, and as such, reply of defendant dated 21.11.2019 is not only evasive but contrary to documentary evidence available on record.

6.4 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would further submit that defendant is undisputedly occupying and using the suit plot which is owned by plaintiff, and as per the last agreement executed between the parties in the year, 2016, defendant is supposed to pay Rs.50,000/- for using the suit plot. So, no error has been committed by Trial Court while directing defendant to deposit Rs.50,000/- in Court for using the suit C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 land.

6.5 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would further submit that question of prior permission of GIDC to put third party in possession of suit plot by plaintiff was not required as such, and in fact, scope of impugned application is only confined to direct defendant to deposit Rs.50,000/- for using the plot.

6.6 It is submitted that defendant has not brought any material on record which can substantiate its claim that plaintiff could not have given the suit plot on rent to defendant without prior permission of GIDC. Undisputedly, till date, there is no legal action as such taken by GIDC against plaintiff for leasing out the suit plot in favour of defendant.

6.7 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would further submit that defendant is trying to divert the issue germane in the impugned application by raising various new pleas which were not pressed into service before the Trial Court, and having used the suit plot, defendant is required to pay license fee which was agreed between the parties.

6.8 Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would submit that C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 plaintiff had earlier filed an application below Exhibit 19 claiming arrears of license fee which was due and payable by defendant since October, 2018 to January, 2021, which was not pressed by them, and as such, impugned application and the order passed thereon by the Trial Court, having not directed defendant to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- from October, 2018 till January, 2021,.

6.9 Mr. Buch, learned advocate would submit that application filed below Exhibit 19 was never adjudicated on its merits but before its adjudication, not pressed by plaintiff at the relevant point of time, and impugned application was having already filed seeking a relief of directing defendant to deposit Rs.50,000/- for using the suit plot was pressed into service. So, the impugned application would not be either barred by principle of Res judicata and / or by provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC as alleged.

6.10 Mr. Buch, learned advocate would lastly submit that there is no gross error of law or any jurisdictional error committed by Trial Court while passing the order. This Court, C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 having exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may not disturb the impugned order.

6.11 Making the above submission, Mr. Buch, learned advocate, would request this Court to reject the present writ application.

#8. No other and further submissions are made by parties. Heard Parties in person (petitioners–defendants) and Mr. P.M. Buch, learned advocate appearing for the respondents– plaintiffs, at length.

#9. Point for Determination “Whether any gross error of law, irregularity and/or jurisdictional error committed by Trial Court while directing defendant to deposit Rs.50,000/- per month before the Nazir of the Trial Court till final disposal of the suit?”

#10. Analysis

#11. Before dealing with the issue germane in the present application, I would like to first observe that petitioners have not complied with the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by this Court, which reads as under: C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 “Heard learned advocate Mr. Nakrani for the petitioners. Learned advocate drew the attention of this Court to the application at Exh.31 filed by the plaintiff and also the order passed by the learned trial Court below the said application and also the review application. He has fairly submitted that at present, the petitioner is enjoying the possession of the premises in question. Considering the nature of grievance and contentions raised by the present petitioner, issue Notice and Notice as to Interim Relief to the respondents, returnable on 26.2.2024. It is open for the petitioner to pray for adjournment before the learned trial Court. In the meantime, the petitioner shall continue to comply with the direction given by the learned trial Court, without any default.”

#12. When petitioners have not complied with the order passed by this Court whereby not deposited Rs.50,000/- per month with the Trial Court as per impugned order, and as such, occupying the suit plot without payment of any such amount, this Court could have dismissed the present application on this ground alone. Nonetheless, without being hyper-technical and to advance substantial justice to the parties, this Court would like to decide the issue germane from the present application on its merit.

#13. The facts so observed hereinabove are not much in C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 dispute. The suit plot is situated at GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad, which was initially given on a long term lease of 99 years by GIDC in favour of M/s Dwarkadhish Industries in the year, 1993, which was later on transferred in favour of plaintiff in the year, 2009, thereby, plaintiff becomes the leaseholder of the suit plot.

#14. It appears that plaintiff was inducted as a partner in the defendant firm in the year, 2009 but retired from the firm in the year, 2012. It further appears that leave and license agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant for using the suit plot in year, 2013, which came to be renewed from time to time, and later on in the year, 2016, a lease agreement for a period between 01.07.2016 to 31.06.2019 was executed between the parties. The license fee of Rs.50,000/- p.m. was agreed between the parties to be paid by defendant to plaintiff. As such, there is no dispute that defendant had in fact paid Rs.50,000/- p.m. to plaintiff for using the suit plot from July, 2016 to October 2018.

#15. When the period of lease came to be expired on C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025

30.06.2019, the plaintiff sought for its possession vide its letter dated 15.10.2019, which was replied by defendant refuting the claim of plaintiff, which ultimately resulted into institution of the suit in question. The plaintiff had filed an application on

08.03.2021 below Exhibit 19, whereby claimed Rs.28,00,000/- as license fees due and payable from October, 2018 to 31st January, 2021 @ Rs.50,000/- per month.

#16. Such application was replied by defendant, but before any final order could have been passed by the Trial Court, such application was not pressed by plaintiff, thereby it was disposed of by Trial Court vide its order dated 20.04.2022.

#17. It is undisputed that pending the application filed below Exhibit 19, the impugned application came to be filed below Exhibit 31 on 22.09.2021, and same was allowed by the Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 02.08.2022.

#18. Parties in person would contend that impugned application is hit by the principle of Res judicata and barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Such argument is misconceived at law and requires to be out rightly rejected. C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025

#19. The principle of Res judicata would apply in a case where in an earlier round of litigation and/or a stage of proceeding results in adjudication of an issue by Trial Court meaning thereby it was heard and finally decided by the Court; then, in subsequent litigation and/or later part of such proceeding, parties are precluded to again raise such issue and / or sought similar relief as the case may be which earlier decided. [See Section 11 of CPC]

19.1 In the present case, the earlier application filed below Exhibit 19 was not at all adjudicated on its merits, and pending such application, the impugned application came to be filed, which was in fact adjudicated on its merits by the Trial Court.

19.2 Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned application would not be barred by principle of Res judicata.

#20. So far as another plea of Parties in person that the impugned application would be barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC, such plea is also misconceived on facts as well as law. C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 The prayer made in the suit is very much clear wherein plaintiff has already asked for arrears of rent till institution of suit as well as mesne profit, and such claim to get mesne profit was not given up by plaintiff. So, the impugned application would not be barred by provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC.

#21. So far as GIDC notification as relied upon by the petitioners - Parties in person is concerned, it would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as lease which was executed between GIDC and the predecessor of plaintiff was for a period of 99 years, which was later on transferred in favour of plaintiff in concurrence of GIDC as confirmed from the office order dated 22.05.2009 issued by Regional Manager, GIDC, Ahmedabad (Annexure-J).

21.1 The clause 2 of GIDC notification reads as under:- “2. These regulations shall apply to godowns and other properties of the Corporation which are or may be let out by the Corporation on rent, provided that these regulations shall not apply to properties which are disposed of by the Corporation by way of long lease of 99 years and above or sale or hire purchase.” C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025

21.2 So, in view of the aforesaid facts of the present case and when lease in question stands in favour of plaintiff as a long lease of 99 years, GIDC notification and/or rent regulation, as the case may be, would not be applicable whereby no prior permission of GIDC was required by plaintiff to sub-lease or sub-let the suit plot in favour of defendant.

#22. It is true that vide its letter dated 15.03.2021, GIDC sought information from plaintiff as to whether the plaintiff has sold the suit plot in favour of defendant and/or rented it and any prior permission or order of such transfer of GIDC be submitted with the office of GIDC. At the same time, there is nothing on record to suggest that GIDC has initiated any action against plaintiff for sub-lease or sub-let of the suit plot in favour of defendant having not obtained prior permission/approval of GIDC. Further, such issue is neither germane in the application nor required to be gone into while adjudicating the impugned application. As such, the defendant is occupying the suit plot and being beneficiary of its use, has no right to raise such plea that no prior approval of GIDC was C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 obtained by plaintiff before putting defendant into possession of suit plot.

#23. It is undisputed fact that defendant while using the suit plot in past, used to pay Rs.50,000/- per month as a license fee to plaintiff. For any reason, it has stopped paying such license fee since October, 2018 but has not even vacated the suit plot. In such situation, when defendant is occupying and using the suit plot, the Trial Court directed the defendant to deposit Rs.50,000/- per month before the Nazir of the Trial Court till disposal of the suit for using such plot, there is no error of law, much less any gross error of law or any jurisdictional error committed by Trial Court. When defendant is using the suit plot and as such, plaintiff is no longer remained partner of defendant having already retired from defendant- firm in the year, 2012 itself, defendant is supposed to deposit at least Rs.50,000/- per month which was agreed between the parties and in fact paid by defendant to plaintiff till September, 2018.

#24. The plaintiff is not allowed to withdraw such amount; C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 thereby, if ultimately defendant succeeds in its defence, it is open for defendant to request the Trial Court to refund such amount. But when the defendant having no title over the suit plot cannot enjoy its occupation without paying/depositing any amount till disposal of the suit.

#25. The defendants have placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of M/s Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited (supra) thereby, would contend that lease deed was not registered one then plaintiff is not entitled to secure any relief. As such issue of registration of lease deed was never pressed into service by defendant before Trial Court either in its written statement or reply to the application and or in present application but a new plea raised for first time in rejoinder by placing reliance upon said decision. Such a new plea that too without any factual foundation can not be considered by this Court in present application while exercising its power under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Even otherwise, scope of the impugned application is confined only as to whether the defendant is required to deposit agreed C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 license fee for occupying and using suit plot till disposal of the suit or not. Thus, decision in a case of M/s Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited (supra) would not be applicable to facts of the present case. Likewise, another decision cited by defendant in a case of B Mahesh & Ors (supra) would also not applicable to the case on hand as no gross error of law committed by Trial Court while allowing impugned application and so also rejected review application filed by defendant.

#26. Further, issues are yet to be decided by the Trial Court and it can be gone into by Trial Court on completion of trial of suit on its own merit as per evidence laid by the parties during course of trial of suit.

#27. Lastly, I would like to observe that the scope and ambit of interference by this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and such right should be exercised sparingly and cannot be exercised at the drop of a hat. [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, C/SCA/1317/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2025 reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 (Para 15 and 16)].

#28. CONCLUSION

#29. The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions, and reasons, I am of the view that there is no gross error of law or any irregularity or a jurisdictional error committed by Trial Court while directing the defendant to deposit Rs.50,000/- per month with Nazir of Trial Court till final disposal of suit.

#30. The present application lacks merits and requires to be dismissed, which is hereby DISMISSED. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. MOHD MONIS (MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)