JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. The petitioner has filed present petition against two concurrent orders. 1.1 The first order is the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the learned trial Court after considering the nature, the scope and the effect of the preliminary issue vis-à-vis the controversy/dispute, decided that it will be necessary to ask the parties to lead evidence to determine the preliminary issue and that therefore, learned trial Court passed the order dated 31.12.2007 asking the parties to lead appropriate evidence with reference to the preliminary issue. 1.2 It appears that the petitioner herein was aggrieved by the said order and therefore, the petitioner carried the said order before the learned revisional-learned First Appellate Court by preferring Civil Revision Application No. 1 of 2008. 1.3 After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, the learned revisional Court passed the order dated 28.11.2013 and rejected the revision application confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court. 1.4 Now, the petitioner has taken out present petition against the above mentioned two concurrent orders (i.e. orders dated 31.12.2007 and 28.11.2013). In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- 14(B) Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing and setting aside Order dated 31-12-2007 passed below Application, Exh. 84 by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch (Annexure-F) as also Order dated 28-11-2013 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Civil Revision Application No. 1 of 2008 (Annexure-H) by directing to decide Issue framed by the Trial Court as per Order below Exh. 60 by treating the same a pure question of Law and without leading any oral evidence. 2. In order to consider and appreciate the dispute raised by the petitioner, it is necessary and appropriate to take into account the relevant facts. 2.1 The petitioner herein is the original defendant and the respondents herein are the original plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 275 of 2001. 2.2 The respondents-plaintiffs have filed the said suit seeking possession and permanent injunction. 2.3 The subject matter of the suit is certain property situate at Bharuch city, district Bharuch, Gujarat State. 2.4 In the said suit, the petitioner-defendant has filed reply. 2.2 The respondents-plaintiffs have filed the said suit seeking possession and permanent injunction. 2.3 The subject matter of the suit is certain property situate at Bharuch city, district Bharuch, Gujarat State. 2.4 In the said suit, the petitioner-defendant has filed reply. 2.5 Subsequently, during the proceedings of the suit, the learned trial Court has framed 9 issues. 2.6 It has further emerged from the record that subsequently, an application to frame and decide a preliminary issue was moved by the petitioner-defendant. 2.7 The said application came to be registered as application Exh. 60. 2.8 At this stage, it is relevant and necessary to mention that the respondents-plaintiffs appear to have relied on a Power of Attorney which is claimed to have been originally executed at Manchester, England. 2.9 It appears that in their defence the petitioners-defendants raised dispute with regard to the authenticity and validity of the said Power of Attorney ["POA" for short] and that the petitioners-defendants moved the above mentioned application Exh. 60 requesting the Court to first decide the issue about authenticity, legality and validity of the said document (POA) as preliminary issue. 2.10 After hearing the petitioners and the defendant, the learned trial Court passed the order dated 26.10.2005 below application Exh. 60 and held that the issue regarding authenticity, legality and validity of the document (POA) will be decided first as preliminary issue. 2.11 Accordingly, the issue viz. whether the plaintiffs prove that the Power of Attorney is legal and valid, came to be framed and vide order dated 26.10.2005 the learned trial Court directed that the said issue will be decided first as preliminary issue. 2.12 Before proceeding further, it is necessary and relevant to mention that since 2005 and for this entire 8-9 years' period the said order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the learned trial Court has never been challenged by any party and both the sides have accepted the said order and the said order has attained finality. 2.13 Now, therefore, the proceedings are required to proceed for deciding the preliminary issue. 2.14 In this context, it is also relevant to note that after the said order dated 26.10.2005, the respondents-plaintiffs moved application Exh. 84 and requested the Court to issue summons so as to call for the original record of the Notary Public before whom the disputed document (POA) was executed. 2.14 In this context, it is also relevant to note that after the said order dated 26.10.2005, the respondents-plaintiffs moved application Exh. 84 and requested the Court to issue summons so as to call for the original record of the Notary Public before whom the disputed document (POA) was executed. 2.15 The learned trial Court, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2007 holding that in view of the controversy raised by the parties and in view of the dispute raised as regards the date on which the said document (POA) is said to have been executed and the dispute to the effect that the signature on the said document (POA) appears to have been made on different dates, the learned trial Court considered it necessary and appropriate to ask the parties to lead evidence and that therefore, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2005. 2.16 As mentioned earlier, the said order was taken in revision before the learned revisional-first appellate Court and the learned revisional-first appellate Court rejected the revision application vide order dated 28.11.2013 and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner-defendant is aggrieved by the said order. Hence, present petition. 3. Mr. Bukhari, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that on plain reading of the said document (POA), it becomes apparent that the date on which the said document is executed and signed by and before the Notary Public is different and the dates on which the witness to the document put their signature is different and that therefore, the said document should be straight away discarded without calling for and without leading evidence and that the said Power of Attorney deserves to be discarded and is required to be held as illegal without leading any evidence. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that when on plain reading of the said document, it becomes apparent that the signatures are put on different dates, then the learned trial Court ought to have held that there is no need for oral evidence. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision in the case between Jugraj Singh & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Ors. [ AIR 1971 SC 761 ] and the decision in the case between Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai & Anr. [ 2002(8) Supreme 253 ]. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision in the case between Jugraj Singh & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Ors. [ AIR 1971 SC 761 ] and the decision in the case between Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai & Anr. [ 2002(8) Supreme 253 ]. Except the aforesaid submissions, any other submission has not been made. 4. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner at length and I have also considered the material on record, including the photocopy of the disputed document (POA), copy of plaint and reply. I have also considered the orders dated 26.10.2005, 31.12.2007 and 28.11.2013. 4.1 According to the petitioner there is no need to lead evidence and even without leading evidence the PoA should be discarded-rejected. 5. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note that the learned trial Court has, on examination of the document placed on record and upon considering the dispute raised by the contesting parties, and upon having found that the issue involved in the matter is mixed question of, considered it appropriate and necessary to ask the parties to lead evidence and that therefore the Court passed order requiring the parties to lead appropriate and necessary evidence. 5.1 The learned revisional Court has examined the said order and the relevant material and after proper examination of all relevant aspects, found itself in agreement with the view of the learned trial Court and did not find it just or proper to interfere with the order. 5.2 Consequently, upon proper examination, the learned revisional Court rejected the revision application confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court. 5.3 Against the said two concurrent findings and orders, the petitioner has taken out present petition. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate, at this stage, to take into account the decisions on which the learned counsel for the petitioner relied. 5.3 Against the said two concurrent findings and orders, the petitioner has taken out present petition. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate, at this stage, to take into account the decisions on which the learned counsel for the petitioner relied. 6.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision in case between Abdul Rahman (supra) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has, in paragraph No. 22 of the said decision, observed that, when the suit is to be disposed of on admitted facts, particularly when the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issue, any particular procedure is not required to be followed by High Court in terms of the Order 16 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and Civil Court can dispose of the suit on preliminary issue when facts are admitted. However, in present case said decision would not render any assistance to the petitioner inasmuch as in the facts of the case it cannot be said that the case before the learned trial Court is to be disposed of on admitted facts, since in present case, it can not be said that the relevant facts are admitted. Actually as observed hereinabove earlier, in view of the dispute raised with regard to the document in question (i.e. the POA), various disputed facts and issues related to disputed facts have arisen. One side to the proceedings asserts the legality, validity and authenticity of the said POA whereas other side disputes it and the controversy raises several issues which, according to the learned trial Court, would require sufficient, relevant and proper evidence so as to enable it to reach just, correct and proper decision. Therefore, learned trial court has observed, and rightly so, that the parties are required to lead the evidence. The facts in cited decision are materially different from the facts in case on hand, hence the decision does not help the petitioner's case. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to note that so far as the disputed document (POA) is concerned, the petitioner-defendant has placed on record a photocopy of the disputed document i.e. the POA. Learned advocate for the petitioner emphasized that in the disputed document viz. POA at one place it is mentioned that the witnesses have put their signature on 5.4.2001 whereas the Notary Public appears to have placed his signature on 30.3.2001. Learned advocate for the petitioner emphasized that in the disputed document viz. POA at one place it is mentioned that the witnesses have put their signature on 5.4.2001 whereas the Notary Public appears to have placed his signature on 30.3.2001. The petitioner emphasized the said discrepancy and submitted that in light of the said discrepancy, the learned trial Court ought to have held, without calling for further evidence and without requiring the parties to lead evidence, that the document is illegal. 7.1 When the said part of the document is taken into account, it is noticed that in the disputed document at the relevant place the date/s and the month/s are handwritten. The relevant typed line of the document reads thus:- IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have hereto put in our signatures today, the ______ day of ______ of the year 2001". It appears that in the blanks which are left in the typed line, the word "5th" is handwritten between the two words "the" and "day" and thereafter, between the words "of" and "of" the word "APRIL" is handwritten. Upon such handwritten words, the said line reads as "IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have hereto put in our signature today, the 5th day of APRIL of the year 2001". In the said document, on the same page, at the end, and against word "WITNESSES:", there is handwritten portion below which there appears to be the stamp of the Notary Public before whom the document appears to have been executed. The said stamp reads thus:- SIGNED/DECLARED/SWORN at Bolton in the County of Greater Manchester England the day of 20 Before me, In the said stamp also, there is a blank between the words "the" and "day" as well as between words "of" and "2001" as a result of which, it transpires that the Notary Public appears to have put his signature on 30.3.2001 certifying that the document is executed before him on 30.3.2001. 7.2 However, what is relevant is the fact that at both places the dates and the months are handwritten. 8. 7.2 However, what is relevant is the fact that at both places the dates and the months are handwritten. 8. It is in light of the said fact that the learned trial Court after taking into account the discrepancy, considered it necessary to call for further relevant and appropriate evidence so as to have sufficient material before it to reach to a proper conclusion as regards the said discrepancy and as regards the issue about authenticity, legality and validity of the document. 8.1 On this count, learned trial Court has recorded and observed that:- Ld. Adv. Shri I.J. Gandhi argued on behalf of plaintiff that, the primary issue has been framed under the application at exhibit: 60 that, " whether the plaintiff proves that, Power of Attorney is executed legally and lawfully or not?" it means that, this issue is not completely as per the point of law, but the fact has also been included therein. That means, it is the mixed issue of "Law and Fact". Because, as per the say of the defendant, the Power of Attorney which is produced by the plaintiff is not legal. Thus it is necessary to take oral evidence to show that whether is legal or not? Because, for the identification of the signature of the person before whom the Power of Attorney is done and for the identification of the person who had signed and for doing the Power of Attorney by the Public Notary that whether he is authorized for doing the Power of Attorney or not? All these issues could be decided with reference to the fact and it is necessary to take the oral evidence for that. On looking to the facts of the suit, the plaintiff had filed the suit to recover the remaining rent, and to receive back the possession of the place given on rent. It means that, it is the prayer of the plaintiff to receive back the property from the defendants which is given on rent by the plaintiff. On looking that, and the Power of Attorney which is produced by the plaintiff is produced by mark 65/1. On looking that, and on looking to the facts of the suit, if the defendants states such that the Power of Attorney which is produced by the plaintiff is not legal, then it is necessary to take oral evidence to examine the same. On looking that, and on looking to the facts of the suit, if the defendants states such that the Power of Attorney which is produced by the plaintiff is not legal, then it is necessary to take oral evidence to examine the same. Because it is necessary to take the oral evidence to examine that, before whom the Power of Attorney is done and who had done the signatures, and whether the signatures are done before the Public Notary or not? or, why the signatures are done on different dates? For examining that aspect, it is necessary to record oral evidence. Though, the Ld. Adv. of the defendant had done the argument that, as the primary issue is only as per the point of law, as the Power of Attorney is not legal, as the suit of the plaintiff itself is liable to be rejected, no truth is found in his argument for rejecting the same. Further, my predecessor ld. Civil Judge has framed the primary issue under the application at exhibit: 60. "Whether the plaintiff proves that the Power of Attorney is prepared legally and as per law or not?". Moreover, this issue is framed as per 1(D) by exhibit: 39. It means that, earlier also the issues were famed in the present suit, and the said suit is kept for taking the oral evidence. If the primary issue under exhibit: 60 was as per legal point then it is not necessary to take the oral evidence. But considering the entire facts in the present suit, and when the responsibility to prove this point is upon the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff wants to give the oral evidence about that, then he should not be stopped. However, if there would have been only the legal point, then the oral evidence cannot be taken. But, looking to the present suit and the Power of Attorney which is produced, it is the mix issue about "Law and Fact". Which I clearly believe. It could not be said at prima facie only on looking to the Power of Attorney that the Power of Attorney is illegal, and as the defendant had raised such a case that the Power of Attorney is illegal, then it is necessary to take the evidence to prove that whether the Power of Attorney is legal or not? It could not be said at prima facie only on looking to the Power of Attorney that the Power of Attorney is illegal, and as the defendant had raised such a case that the Power of Attorney is illegal, then it is necessary to take the evidence to prove that whether the Power of Attorney is legal or not? And then only the decision could be taken that, whether the Power of Attorney is legal or illegal. So, as it is necessary to take the oral evidence for the primary issue which is framed in the present suit under the application of exhibit: 60, I believe that the oral evidence should be taken. Thus, if the plaintiff wants to produce the oral evidence on the primary issue, then after giving sufficient opportunity to them, the appropriate decisions could be taken Thus, I believe that the evidence should be taken about the primary issue which is framed at exhibit: 60 in the present suit. 8.2 While the matter was before the learned revisional Court, the learned revisional Court also considered the aforesaid aspects and agreed with the view of the learned trial Court. 9. It emerges from the said two orders that in light of the fact that probably there were blanks at the aforesaid in the document, which came to be alleged filled up by handwritten, details which would give rise to several issues e.g. (a) whether there were blanks in the document (POA) when presented before the Notary, or not; (b) If yes, when were the blanks filled-up and who filled up the blanks and whose handwriting it is; and, (c) whether the correct and exact position of the document in original-as in the custody-of the Notary or there is any alteration in the document placed on record before the Court; and that therefore the Court considered it appropriate to call for evidence to determine as to whether the said details are filled up subsequently and/or concocted or forged document is placed on record and therefore, the learned trial Court considered it appropriate to pass such direction. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any material irregularity or committed any error of law or jurisdiction in requiring the parties to lead appropriate evidence. 11. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any material irregularity or committed any error of law or jurisdiction in requiring the parties to lead appropriate evidence. 11. The said direction is passed and the parties are required to lead appropriate evidence so that the Court can reach to correct, just and proper conclusion. The Court, in the interest of justice and so as to finally decide any issue-raised and/or involved in the suit, is conferred with and would always have power to call for such evidence as may be considered relevant and necessary for the purpose. 11.1 If, the Court, considers it necessary that additional/further evidence is required so as to reach to correct, just and proper conclusion then under the Code the Court has ample power and sufficient discretion to call for evidence-by way of calling witness or documents-as may be considered, in Court's judicial discretion, necessary e.g. provision under Order XVI Rule 14 or Order XI Rule 14. For such purpose, if the Court directs the parties to lead further evidence or to place evidence on record, then, any fault cannot be found with such direction. 11.2 In present case, it is pertinent that it is the petitioner who raised dispute with regard to the dispute in question (i.e. the POA) and its validity/authenticity and legality. It is the petitioner who insisted that the said dispute/issue should be decided first. It is pertinent that Court accepted the said request vide order dtd. 26.10.2005 which has attained finality since any party has not challenged the order. Then the plaintiff-respondent requested for summons for production of document in the custody of Notary. 12. When in this background and having regard to the nature of allegations and upon considering the dispute the Court considered it necessary and appropriate to call for evidence then this Court would not interfere with exercise of discretion, more so when learned first appellate-revisional court has also confirmed the order and when the discretion and power is not exercised illegally or arbitrarily or with material irregularity and when the petitioner has failed to show any prejudice and has also failed to conclusively demonstrate that order is perverse. Such direction, in view of this Court, cannot be said to be illegal, unjust or arbitrary. Such direction, in view of this Court, cannot be said to be illegal, unjust or arbitrary. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned two concurrent orders. Learned advocate for the petitioner failed to make out any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned trial court and confirmed by the revisional-first appellate Court by the said two concurrent orders. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly disposed of. Disposed off.