ORDER : 1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of seeking following reliefs: “8. (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 26.02.2019 rendered by the learned 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Surat below Exh.248 in Special Civil Suit No.88/2011 and be pleased to allow the application Exh.248 in Special Civil Suit No.88/2011. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 26.02.2019 rendered by the learned 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Surat below Exh.248 in Special Civil Suit No.88/2011 AND also be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.88/2011 pending in the court of Ld 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Surat; (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the original plaintiffs of a suit being Special Civil Suit No.88 of 2011 filed for the purpose of seeking cancellation of sale deed, which took place with respect to an agricultural land of old tenure in nature bearing Revenue Survey No.142/1 admeasuring 1-25-45 hector are sq. meter and Kharaba land admeasuring 0-08-09 hector are sq. meter belonging to the plaintiffs. Towards this portion of agricultural land, the crop of Banana and Papdi and some old trees of Chikoo and Mango are being cultivated and grown up. There are three dwelling houses over the land in question. It is the case of the petitioners that in March 2008, a land broker namely, Mr.Vanrajbhai H.Solanki has visited plaintiff No.1 accompanied by Mr.Dhirubhai M.Patel who intended to purchase the land from the petitioners - plaintiffs. The talks took place with plaintiff No.1 and in response thereto defendant No.2 was brought by broker namely Vanrajbhai H.Solanki, as a purchaser and was introduced by Mr.Hirenbhai Jani as an advocate. The transaction took place after fixation of price with respect to land and the stamp paper, affidavit etc. The talks took place with plaintiff No.1 and in response thereto defendant No.2 was brought by broker namely Vanrajbhai H.Solanki, as a purchaser and was introduced by Mr.Hirenbhai Jani as an advocate. The transaction took place after fixation of price with respect to land and the stamp paper, affidavit etc. were signed, which were to be utilized for the purpose of NA permission. Even, advocate Mr.Hiren Jani has brought the books of notary in which plaintiff No.1 has given his signature and thumb impression. Later on, the same turned out to be a sale transaction by executing sale deed dated 31.03.2008 in favour of defendant No.1 and the same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 30.04.2008. The said deed has been executed by one Mr.Bhikhabhai Gabhrubhai Makwana as a purported Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.1. According to the petitioners, this entire transaction is the result of an articulated scam against them and the plaintiffs have been defrauded which led them not only to file the present suit, but also a complaint before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who issued the process on a complaint being filed bearing FIR C.R.No.-I-30/2010 lodged before Chowk Bazar Police Station. 2.1. The case of the petitioners is that the suit i.e. Special Civil Suit proceeded further in which an order of status quo was granted, the issues were framed at Exh.54 and the chief examination of plaintiff was recorded at Exh.64 and the cross-examination has also taken place. During the process of adjudication, the petitioners gave an application at Exh.175, requested to issue summons for necessary witnesses, and the plaintiffs have examined, Shri Dhirubhai M.Patel at Exh.176, Smt. Sumanben Vindochandra Patel at Exh.181, Shri Bhikhabhai Gabhrubhai Makwana at Exh.197 and one another witness Shri J.J.Patel was to be examined, but had expired and several other witnesses have also been examined with the leave of the Court. As against this, defendant No.1 has not led any evidence but then the right of adducing evidence is opened up on 05.02.2019 at Exh.239. After this process of evidence, has reached at the advance stage, the petitioners submitted an application at Exh.248 now to issue summons to the Police Officer, who is Police Inspector, In-charge of Chowk Bazar Police Station to present himself with all the relevant documents, which were seized during the course of investigation. After this process of evidence, has reached at the advance stage, the petitioners submitted an application at Exh.248 now to issue summons to the Police Officer, who is Police Inspector, In-charge of Chowk Bazar Police Station to present himself with all the relevant documents, which were seized during the course of investigation. This application has been submitted much after all the evidences have been recorded earlier which were found to be relevant by the petitioners, and as such, now to call for another police witness to be summoned, application was insisted upon which came to be rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26.02.2019, which order is made the subject matter of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Arpit A.Kapadia appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by the Court below is not only unjust and arbitrary, but contrary to the very object of allowing witnesses to be produced for leading evidence. It has been submitted that the reason, which has been assigned by the learned Judge is also not in consonance with the relevant provisions of law whereby the petitioners are entitled to produce the witness by requesting to issue summons. Mr.Kapadia, learned advocate has further submitted that in the interest of justice, the petitioners could have been allowed to produce the documents and to prove that material can be given at any time before even the pronouncement of judgment, and as such, the learned Judge is not correct in asserting that at this stage, no such application is entertainable. 3.1. To substantiate his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Kapadia appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a decision delivered by this Court in the case of Naren Advertising & Marketing & Anr. versus State Bank of Saurashtra & Anr. reported in 2001(3) GLR 2671 and has contended that discretion which has been exercised is not just and proper, not in consonance with the very object of Section 101 and Section 102 of the Evidence Act, and as such, the order requires to be corrected. Learned advocate Mr.Kapadia has further submitted that these documents, which were seized by the police were material documents and deserves to be proved during the course of trial, and as such, the order reflects a material irregularity in exercising discretion. Learned advocate Mr.Kapadia has further submitted that these documents, which were seized by the police were material documents and deserves to be proved during the course of trial, and as such, the order reflects a material irregularity in exercising discretion. Accordingly, this Court may kindly correct the error, which has been committed by the Court below. No other submissions have been made. 4. Having heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the material on record, which has been produced, it prima facie appears that the learned Judge while exercising the discretion has applied his mind to the grievance, which has been raised by the petitioners and it has also been taken note of that at what stage such application is moved by the petitioners. Learned Judge has further taken note of a situation where the relevant documents were very much produced by the petitioners forming part of the record and the case is at a stage of cross examination of defendant No.1. Learned Judge has also considered the fact that it was the obligation on the part of original plaintiffs to produce all relevant documentary material at a stage where his / her evidence is being completed and here is the case in which the plaintiffs have already completed their evidence. As a result of this, there was no necessity found by the learned Judge to entertain the application which may further delay the proceedings. 4.1. Additionally, it clearly appears from the order that while exercising the discretion, the learned trial Judge has also considered the fact that this suit is of 2011, in which, the evidence has substantially gone in, and at this stage, such kind of application, which has been moved, found to be not entertainable. It has further been taken note of that in past several witnesses have been examined, and therefore, adequate opportunity was already given, and considering the application, the learned Judge has categorically found that no case is made out to allow such kind of application. Hence, it ex facie appears from the record that learned Judge has exercised discretion by assigning cogent reasons, and as such, there appears to be no material irregularity and perversity in passing an order. 4.2. Hence, it ex facie appears from the record that learned Judge has exercised discretion by assigning cogent reasons, and as such, there appears to be no material irregularity and perversity in passing an order. 4.2. Additionally, the Court has also gone into the decision which has been tried to be relied upon, but the facts contained in that judgment is altogether different from what has been reflecting here on case on hands, and therefore, the ratio laid down has no clear application and not possible to be applied as a straightjacket formula. No doubt, there is no time limit prescribed for giving such kind of request, but at the same time, there appears to be no specific provision by virtue of which as a part of compulsion, power can be exercised as has been requested, and as such, the discretion must be based upon sound reasoning, which appears to be properly exercised here in the case, and as such, in respectful agreement with the said proposition of law in a decision referred to, but the background of fact is such in which it is not possible for this Court to apply the same as a straightjacket formula to grant the request, which has been made. 4.3. Further, it appears even from the case of the petitioners themselves that several witnesses have been examined and several witness summons were also requested to be issued vide Exh.175 and those witnesses have been permitted, and as such, to go on making such kind of application again and again, the same rightly found to be delayed the proceedings of a suit, which is of 2011. The Court found no irregularity in exercising such discretion, hence, in the absence of any material irregularity, the Court is of the opinion that no case is made out to call for any interference. 4.4. The law on the issue of exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is amply clarified by catena of decisions and one of such decision which is in the case Mohd. Yunus versus Mohd. Mustaquim and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 , the relevant observations contained in paragraph No.7 are sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that this is not a case in which power under Article 227 deserves to be exercised. The relevant abstract contained in paragraph No.7 is reproduced hereinafter: “7. Yunus versus Mohd. Mustaquim and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 38 , the relevant observations contained in paragraph No.7 are sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that this is not a case in which power under Article 227 deserves to be exercised. The relevant abstract contained in paragraph No.7 is reproduced hereinafter: “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts udder Art. 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority", and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art.227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 4.5. Additionally, even in the recent time, a decision in the case of Sameer Suresh Gupta versus Rahul Kumar Agarwal reported in (2013) 9 SCC 374 , in which, the observations contained in paragraphs No.6 and 7 are also postulating various situations as to in which circumstance power under Article 227 be exercised. Hence, keeping in view, this peripheral proposition of law on exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out. Hence, petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed with no order as to costs.