JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition filed by the petitioners-original defendants under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.03.2014 passed below Exh.29 and the order dated 04.04.2014 below Exh. 73 passed by the 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Regular Civil Suit No. 194 of 2012. 2. The short facts of the case as transpiring from the record are that the respondents-original plaintiffs have filed the suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 194 of 2012 against the petitioners-original defendants seeking permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit land. The petitioners-defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit contending various grounds. The trial Court framed the issues at Exh. 25 on 10.02.2014. The petitioners-defendants made an application at Exh. 29 requesting the Court to frame an additional issue, as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by law of limitation. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 06.03.2014. 3. It appears that thereafter the respondents-plaintiffs submitted an application for examination of the witnesses, and the Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the plaintiffs was examined at Exh. 71. The said witness was also cross-examined by the petitioners-defendants. After the cross-examination of the said witness was over, an application was given on behalf of the plaintiffs to summon the Court Commissioner who had submitted a report in the suit. The Court having accepted the said application, the Court Commissioner was summoned and he had remained present for his examination. At that time, the petitioners-defendants submitted an application at Exh. 73 seeking to recall the Power of Attorney holder examined on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that certain questions had remained to be asked. The said application Exh. 73 has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2014. Hence, being aggrieved by the said two orders dated 06.03.2014 passed below Exh. 29 and order dated 04.04.2014 below Exh. 73, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Patel for the petitioners. Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents have not joined the link, though the matter was called out twice. 5. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr. 29 and order dated 04.04.2014 below Exh. 73, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Patel for the petitioners. Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents have not joined the link, though the matter was called out twice. 5. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Patel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners-defendants though had not specifically raised the issue of limitation as to how the suit was barred by law of limitation, under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the suit could be dismissed although the limitation has not been set up as a defence. According to him, the trial Court ought to have raised the issue of limitation as prayed for in the application at Exh. 29. He further submitted that the trial Court has also committed an error in not granting the application of the petitioners-defendants at Exh. 73 for recalling the witness of the plaintiffs in the interest of justice as certain questions had remained to be asked to the witness during the course of cross-examination. 6. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Patel, it is required to be noted that the petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus or writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the trial Court, however as per the legal position settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. reported in AIR (2015) SC 3269, judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. The Supreme Court after discussing many earlier decisions with regard to the scope of Article 226 and 227 observed as under : “22. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai also observed in para 25 of its judgment that distinction between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost obliterated. In para 24 of the said judgment distinction in the two articles has been noted. In view thereof, observation that scope of Article 226 and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly observed by the referring Bench in Para 32 quoted above. In para 24 of the said judgment distinction in the two articles has been noted. In view thereof, observation that scope of Article 226 and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly observed by the referring Bench in Para 32 quoted above. We make it clear that though despite the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, it has been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the said jurisdiction has been expanded. Scope of Article 227 has been explained in several decisions including Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, Ouseph Mathai vs. M. Abdul Khadir, Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil and Sameer Suresh Gupta vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal. In Shalini Shyam Shetty, this Court observed : "64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority. 66. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law. 67. As a result of frequent interference by the Hon'ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon'ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly." (emphasis added) 23. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.” 7. It is also a well settled proposition of law that the High Court cannot in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, convert itself into a Court of Appeal, and that such jurisdiction has to be exercised very sparingly, when the Court finds that the jurisdictional error committed by the Court below has caused failure of justice or would cause grave injustice to the party aggrieved. Now, keeping in view the said legal position, if the facts of the present case are appreciated, then it appears that the first grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the non-framing of the issue of limitation in the Issues framed by the trial Court. However, there is no substance in the said grievance. Now, keeping in view the said legal position, if the facts of the present case are appreciated, then it appears that the first grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the non-framing of the issue of limitation in the Issues framed by the trial Court. However, there is no substance in the said grievance. As a matter of fact, there was no specific averment made by the petitioners-defendants in their written statement that the suit was barred by law of limitation. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Rule 1 of Order XIV, the “Issues” arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. In the instant case, there was no material proposition of fact or of law with regard to the period of limitation raised by the plaintiffs and denied by the defendants, or raised by the defendants and denied by the plaintiffs. Mere general contention raised by the defendants in the written statement that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by delay, latches and limitation, could not be said to be a material proposition of fact or law as contemplated in Rule 1 of Order XIV. In absence of any specific contention in the written statement as to how the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation, it could not be said that there was material proposition of fact or law with regard to an issue of limitation raised in the written statement. The Court therefore does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the trial Court below Exh. 29. 8. It may further be noted that the said order dated 06.03.2014 had remained unchallenged by the petitioners-defendants, till the trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners Exh. 73 for recalling the witness examined by the plaintiffs. As transpiring from the order passed below Exh. 73, the witness i.e. the Power of Attorney holder was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs at Exh. 71 and he was also cross-examined by the defendants. Thereafter, when another witness i.e. the Court Commissioner was summoned and was to be examined, at the instance of the application made by the plaintiffs, the application Exh. 73, the witness i.e. the Power of Attorney holder was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs at Exh. 71 and he was also cross-examined by the defendants. Thereafter, when another witness i.e. the Court Commissioner was summoned and was to be examined, at the instance of the application made by the plaintiffs, the application Exh. 73 was sought to be given by the defendants for recalling the earlier witness of the plaintiffs on the ground that certain questions had remained to be asked in his cross-examination. It is settled legal position that the witness could not be recalled for filling up the lacuna in the cross-examination, apart from the fact that there was no genuine reason shown in the application for recalling witness already cross-examined by the defendants. It appears that such an application was filed by the petitioners-defendants only to cause inconvenience to the Court and to the witness who was present for examination. The trial Court after considering the said application has rightly rejected the same, which does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel has also failed to point out as to how any jurisdictional error was committed by the trial Court and as to how grave injustice would be caused or how failure of justice had occasioned, by the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 10. The request made by the learned Advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the petitioners to extend the ad-interim relief with a view to approach the higher forum is rejected for the reasons stated in the above order.