JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tatvam K. Patel on behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Chaturvedi on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3. 2. Issue Rule. Learned Advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. By way of this petition the petitioner challenges an order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh. 86 in Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013, whereby the learned Civil Court had rejected the application below Exh. 86 preferred by the present petitioner- original defendant no.1 for issuance of witness summons. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under: 4.1 The respondent no.1 herein is the original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013 in which Exh. 86 below which the impugned order had been passed. The petitioner herein is the original- defendant no.1 and respondents no. 2 to 4 are original defendants no. 2 to 4. Said regular civil suit had been preferred inter alia praying for setting aside of a deed titled as ‘consent letter with regard to sale-deed’ dated 15.03.2010 on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper notarized on 17.03.2010 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘agreement of consent’) It appears as from the pleadings of the civil suit that the ‘agreement of consent’ had been challenged inter alia on the ground that land of the original plaintiff bearing Revenue Survey No. 60, New Block No. 51 situated at Village: Khanpur, District: Vadodara had been sold to the petitioner- defendant no.1 by way of a registered sale-deed dated 09.06.2009 by a Power of Attorney Holder of the original plaintiff. It is inter alia alleged that the said Power of Attorney had never been given by the original plaintiff and whereas the said sale-deed had been questioned by the plaintiff by preferring Special Civil Suit No. 507 of 2009 and whereas in the said civil suit a written statement had been filed by defendant no.1 on 05.04.2012 wherein the deed in question dated 15.03.2010 - notarized on 17.03.2010 had been produced claiming that the plaintiff had confirmed the sale-deed and whereas the plaintiff had preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013 challenging the said deed of consent on the ground that the same was fraudulent. The defendant no. The defendant no. 1- petitioner herein had filed his written statement in the month of June 2017 and whereas it appears that two intervening proceedings, had preceded the present proceedings. It appears that an interim order had been passed by the learned Civil Court in the present as well as connected suits and whereas the petitioner herein had preferred Appeal from Order No. 159 of 2021 and Appeal From Order No. 160 of 2021 before this Court and whereas vide an order dated 11.03.2022 a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court ( Coram: Dr. Justice A.P. Thaker) while recording consensus of the parties had directed the parties to maintain status quo and whereas all the suits i.e. total five in number between the parties had been directed to be disposed of by the learned Trial Court preferably within a period of six months. 4.2 It further appears that while the suit had been proceeding and whereas the original plaintiff had produced documents including originals and had filed affidavit of evidence and whereas the plaintiff had been cross-examined and his evidence had been closed in the month of July 2022. It further appears that thereafter on 01.08.2022 the petitioner- defendant no.1 had preferred an application below Exh. 65 seeking production of 21 documents as per list Exh. 66 and whereas the said list included a copy of a report by the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 14.10.2013. ( which is inter alia sought to be produced by one of the witnesses who is sought to be summoned vide application below Exh. 86 order rejecting the said Exh. 86 is impugned herein). Such application had been rejected by the learned Civil Court insofar as 19 documents and whereas two documents, not including the FSL report referred to hereinabove were permitted to be produced. It appears that the said order insofar as it had rejected production of 19 documents had been challenged by the present petitioner before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 17745 of 2022 and whereas vide judgment dated 19.09.2022 a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Umesh Trivedi, J.) had rejected the said petition. It appears that the said order insofar as it had rejected production of 19 documents had been challenged by the present petitioner before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 17745 of 2022 and whereas vide judgment dated 19.09.2022 a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Umesh Trivedi, J.) had rejected the said petition. The said decision had been challenged by the petitioner by preferring Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 17287 of 2022 and whereas vide an order dated 10.10.2022, upon consent of learned Advocate for the original plaintiff, of the document in question such documents which were originas or certified copies of originals, were permitted to be exhibited whereas the petition had been disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on basis of such concession. It appears that subsequently the present petitioner had preferred application below Exh. 81 in Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013 on 17.10.2022 for production of three documents, as per the consent of the learned Advocate for the plaintiff before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and whereas vide an order dated 17.10.2022, of the three documents sought to be produced the learned Civil Court had permitted production of one document being a certified copy of the police report dated 27.03.2015 had been rejected. The said order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the learned Civil Court had been challenged by the present petitioner by preferring Special Civil Application No. 22504 of 2022 and whereas the said petition had also been heard along with the present upon request of the learned Advocate for the petitioner under instruction , vide an order even date, the said petition had been permitted to be withdrawn. 4.3 It appears that subsequent to order dated 17.10.2022 passed below Exh. 81, on 20.10.2022, the petitioner preferred an application below Exh. 86, requesting for issuance of summons for calling two witnesses namely the Police Inspector, D.C.B Police Station, Vadodara for production of original document submitted to the Finger Print Bureau, Forensic Science Laboratory based upon which report dated 14.10.2013 by the Fingerprint Bureau, Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad had been submitted as well as the original report by the Finger Print Bureau of the FSL and upon such original documents being produced one Mr. K.J. Bharward, who had authored the report by the Finger Print Bureau of FSL dated 14.10.2013 be summoned for being examined with regard to report dated 14.10.2013 as regards the veracity of the document in question i.e. deed dated 17.10.2010. 4.4 The learned Civil Judge being the 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara vide order dated 20.10.2022 had rejected such application inter alia holding that the copies of ‘agreement of consent’ had been produced by both the plaintiff and the defendant and whereas since the same could be examined as secondary evidence original was not required to be produced since its existence was not disputed. It was further observed that as far as the report of the Forensic Sciense Laboratory was concerned the same had been sought to be produced vide application below Exh. 65 (wrongly referred as Exh. 62 in the impugned order) and whereas on the ground that the same was a belated application it had been rejected. According to the learned Civil Court since the same had not been permitted to be produced, the witness summons for producing the original could not be permitted. The learned Civil Court further observes that since production of xerox copy of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) had been refused, the witness summon could not be issued for production of original of the same document. Thus holding, the learned Civil Court had rejected the said application below Exh. 86, being aggrieved by which the petitioner – original plaintiff no. 1 has preferred the present petition. 5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tatvam K. Patel on behalf of the petitioner who would assail the impugned order dated 20.10.2022 by submitting that the learned Civil Court had committed a grave error in rejecting the application for summoning of witnesses, more particularly according to learned Advocate the impugned order is bereft of any reasons for rejecting such application. 5.1 Learned Advocate in this regard would submit that Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013 had been filed by the plaintiff – respondent no.1 inter alia contending that the ‘agreement of consent’ dated 15.10.2010, notarized on 17.10.2010 was not genuine and that the signature on the said confirmation deed were also forged. 5.1 Learned Advocate in this regard would submit that Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013 had been filed by the plaintiff – respondent no.1 inter alia contending that the ‘agreement of consent’ dated 15.10.2010, notarized on 17.10.2010 was not genuine and that the signature on the said confirmation deed were also forged. It has been submitted that identical allegation had been made by the original plaintiff in a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner and whereas the said ‘agreement of consent’ had been submitted by the Investigating Officer to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. It is submitted by learned Advocate that originals of both the ‘agreement of consent’ and the FSL report were crucial for the purpose of deciding the suit in question since the veracity of the ‘agreement of consent’ and the genunity of the same was the issue in question in the civil suit concerned. Learned Advocate would submit that under such circumstances, the learned Civil Court ought not to have rejected the said application. 6. Learned Advocate would further submit that the learned Civil Court has gravely erred in coming to a conclusion that since production of the FSL report had been rejected, therefore the original of the same could not be permitted to be produced by summoning of the witness. In this regard learned Advocate would submit that Civil Procedure Code does not prohibit summoning a witness for production of document when the production had not been permitted. In any case according to learned Advocate Mr.Patel, the production of the said document had been rejected/disallowed on the ground that the petitioner did not have certified copy or original thereof. Learned Advocate would submit that judgment of this Court dated 19.09.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 17745 of 2022 as well as order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court thereupon dated 10.10.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 17287 of 2022 inter alia not permitting production of the FSL report was on the ground that original had not been produced. Learned Advocate would submit that such rejection, could not come in the way of present petitioner for issuance of witness summons for production of the said documents. Learned Advocate would submit that such rejection, could not come in the way of present petitioner for issuance of witness summons for production of the said documents. 6.1 Learned Advocate would further submit that it is upon the production of such document being disallowed finally by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the cause for preferring the present application for witness summons inter alia for production of such document was necessitated. Learned Advocate would further submit that since the document which is sought to be produced by summoning the witness for production of documents and the examination of the other witnesses were crucial for the present petitioner to prove his case and whereas the learned Civil Court without appreciating the said application in its proper perspective had rejected the same, therefore interference of this Court is requested. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel in support of this submission relies upon decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. INEOS Styrolution Ltd. - AIR 2021 GUJARAT 12 and would submit that this Court vide said decision had inter alia observed that witness summons could not be rejected on the ground of delay. Learned Advocate would submit that having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the above decision, this Court may set aside the impugned decision and may direct the learned Civil Court to issue witness summons as prayed for. 8. This petition is vehemently objected to by the learned Advocate Mr. A.S Vakil with learned Advocate Ms. A.B. Chaturvedi on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 3. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil would submit that the impugned order dated 20.10.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity or error of law or on facts and whereas learned Advocate would submit that the said order may not be interfered by this Court. 9.1 Learned Advocate would submit that as such application Exh. 86 does not mention any sufficient cause for not filing of such an application in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC i.e such application for witness summons not being given even 15 days from the date of which issues are settled. 10. 9.1 Learned Advocate would submit that as such application Exh. 86 does not mention any sufficient cause for not filing of such an application in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC i.e such application for witness summons not being given even 15 days from the date of which issues are settled. 10. Learned Advocate would further submit that the application dated 20.10.2022 is submitted 9 years after the suit had been preferred, five years after the written statement had been submitted, seven months after learned Co-ordinate Bench passed order dated 11.03.2022 directing the learned Trial Court to decide the suit within six months and almost three months after evidence of the plaintiff was recorded and closed and almost two months after the learned Trial Court had disallowed production of documents including FSL report dated 14.10.2013 which had been confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Advocate would submit that such conduct of the petitioner would clearly demonstrate the intent of the petitioner to delay the trial which according to learned Advocate amounts to abuse of the process. 10.1 Learned Advocate would further submit that such abuse is further aggravated on account of existence of order dated 11.03.2022 whereby this Court had directed the learned Civil Court to decide the suits within a period of six months. Learned Advocate would submit that inspite of such direction and whereas inspite of this Court having directed the parties to co-operate in expeditious hearing, yet by moving such application , the petitioner was ensuring that the direction was not followed and whereas the petitioner was ensuring that the learned Civil Court could not decide the suit within the time frame fixed by this Court. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil would submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the decision of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (supra) had inter alia observed that application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC for issuing witness summons could be refused on three counts namely the application was not bonafide or was vexatious or granting such application would result in an abuse of process of the Court. Learned Advocate would submit that the present case squarely falls under the head of abuse of process of the Court and whereas learned Advocate would request this Court not to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Advocate would submit that the present case squarely falls under the head of abuse of process of the Court and whereas learned Advocate would request this Court not to interfere with the impugned order. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate would rely upon the following decisions: [1] Brij Narain vs Kanchan Sing- 1993 SCC Online Raj. 469 : (1993) 2 RLW 566 [2] Sanmati Kumar vs. Lalit Kumar – 1997 SCC Online Raj. 745: (1998) 2 RLW 1105 [3] Shantilal Vs. Mahendra Kumar- 2002 SCC Online Raj. 602 [4] Sunder vs. Mohd. Ismail and another : 2004 SCC Online AP 192 : AIR 2004 AP 538 [5] Vikas Aggrawal vs. Tripta Mehra – 2005 SCC Online Del 500 [6] Sanjay Sham Bagade and another vs. Ramesh Hari Madan and other – 2014 (5) Mh.L.J. [7] Gayathri vs, M .Girish – (2016) 14 SCC 142 12. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 13. At the outset before discussing and giving findings on the factual aspects of the submissions made by the learned Advocates, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the legal position as regards an application under Order 16 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code for issuance of witness summons. 14. Learned Advocates on both the sides have referred to various judgments and whereas as could be discernible from the list of judgments quoted hereinabove, it would appear that except a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gayathri(supra), no other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been quoted by the parties and whereas it would also be relevant to mention here that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is on the aspect of dilatory tactics adopted before the learned Trial Courts and whereas the said decision is not on the issue in question. As regards the other decisions, it would appear that while learned Advocate for the respondents, has relied upon various decisions of other learned High Courts, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. As regards the other decisions, it would appear that while learned Advocate for the respondents, has relied upon various decisions of other learned High Courts, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court while the decisions of other High Courts, could be distinguishable on facts, yet, in view of the fact that there exists a decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court on the issue in question, therefore, the same would be binding on this Court, as against judgments of the other High Court. Under such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate not to dwell upon the decisions of other High Courts and whereas this Court would seek to rely upon the law laid down by this Court. 15. This Court in Bharat heavy Electrical Limited(supra) , after analyzing earlier decisions of other High Courts, had laid down certain propositions as regards Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC. The said propositions, finding place an paragraph no. 16 and whereas such paragraph being relevant for the present purpose, is quoted hereinbelow for benefit: “16. A reading of the aforenoted authorities leads us to lay down the following propositions: (1) Under Order, Rule 1, C.P.C it is the right of the party at any stage of the suit to make an application to the Court seeking that summons be issued to a witness either to give evidence or to produce documents. (2) The Court is not entitled to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit on the adjourned date of the suit. (3) If the summons is not served by the adjourned date of the suit the party who filed the application to issue the summons would take the risk. (4) If an application for adjournment is made at the `instance of the party who applied under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. it is for the Court to consider whether or not an adjournment should be granted. (5) The Court may not refuse to order an application under Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P.C. on the ground that the evidence, if produced, may not be of any help to the document. (5) The Court may not refuse to order an application under Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P.C. on the ground that the evidence, if produced, may not be of any help to the document. (6) Though Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. does not in terms impose any restrictions on the Court, the Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may refuse to issue summons in an application made under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C in those cases where it is satisfied that the application filed was not bonafide or was vexatious or granting the application would result in an abuse of process of the Court. Except in these three above contingencies the application must almost always be ordered. 15.1 The propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, could be summed up more particularly having regard to the fact scenario inasmuch as that an application for witness summons under Order 16 Rule 1, C.P.C is a right of a party and such an application could be made at any stage of the suit. The Court would not refuse such an application on the ground that the same might delay the trial and whereas in case summons is issued, the same is at the risk of the party who filed the application to ensure service whereas it would be the discretion of the Court to refuse adjournment even if summons is not served. At the stage of application for issuance of witness summons, the Court is not empowered to reject the same while coming to a conclusion that the evidence which is sought to be produced may not help to the petitioner. Most importantly it has been held by the Hon’ble Division Bench that application for witness summons could be refused on three counts namely (1) where application is not bonafide; (2) where application was vexatious and (3) where grant of application would result in abuse of process of the Court. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Division Bench has further clarified the issue by observing that apart from an application for issuance of witness summons being rejected on any of the contingencies mentioned hereinabove, the application should always be allowed. 16. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Division Bench has further clarified the issue by observing that apart from an application for issuance of witness summons being rejected on any of the contingencies mentioned hereinabove, the application should always be allowed. 16. Having discussed the law on the issue of witness summons, this Court would now examine whether the application was required to be rejected on any of the three contingencies as laid down by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (supra). It would be required to be noted herein that as such, as regards the first two contingencies i.e. the application either lacking bonafides or the application being vexatious, neither it is the opinion of this Court nor has it been submission of learned Advocates appearing for respondents no.1, 2 and 3 that the application should have been dismissed on the above contingencies. 16.1 To elaborate by way of the application dated 20.10.2022, the petitioner was seeking to produce original copy of an ‘agreement of consent’ and report of the Fingerprint Bureau of Forensic Science Laboratory which had examined the said agreement and also for examination of the author of the report given by the FSL. It would appear that the suit in question, had been filed for declaration that the ‘agreement of consent’ referred to hereinabove was fraudulent. It also does not appear that such an application had been given hereinbefore and had been rejected or that the application had been moved by someone who was not concerned with the outcome of the suit. Thus it would appear that the application was neither lacking bonafides nor vexatious. 17. It also does not appear that such an application had been given hereinbefore and had been rejected or that the application had been moved by someone who was not concerned with the outcome of the suit. Thus it would appear that the application was neither lacking bonafides nor vexatious. 17. Insofar as the aspect of the application being an abuse of the process of the Court, the learned Advocates for respondents have submitted that the application is an abuse of process of the Court on the following counts namely (1) that no reasons being assigned for the application being moved at such a late stage; (2) The application having been moved nine years after the suit was filed, five years after written statement was filed, seven months after order of this Court dated 11.03.2022 fixing timeline for deciding the suit and three months after evidence of plaintiff was recorded and closed and that the application was moved inspite of order dated 11.03.2022 directing the learned Trial Court to decide the suit preferably within six months and this Court also directing the parties to co-operate in disposal within time frame. The application being moved after the earlier application for production of the report of the FSL, had been rejected upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court none of the above aspects as raised by the learned Advocates for the respondents would be relevant for holding that the application was an abuse of the process of the Court. To elaborate insofar as the application being moved without any reasons, it would appear that the said contention had been neither raised by the respondents before the learned Civil Court nor the learned Civil Court had considered the said objection as one of the grounds for rejecting the application Exh. 86. In any case in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for delayed preferring of the appeal, when it has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the cause to prefer such an application had arisen only after the order passed by the learned Civil Court rejecting application for production of documents including the FSL report in question had been confirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the said circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court non-stating of sufficient cause as per Order 16 Rule 1 (2) of CPC would not be fatal to the said application under Exh. 86. In the considered opinion of this Court, more particularly having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (supra), it would appear that an application for issuance of the witness summons can be made at any stage of the suit and whereas the same is the right of a party and except in case where the Court finds that the application was either not bonafide or vexatious or grant of the application would result in an abuse of the process of the Court, the same would have to be granted. Thus it would appear unless the application falls under the above three categories, only on account of the fact that sufficient cause is not shown, would not render the application liable to be dismissed. At the cost of reiteration, in the instant case, since this Court is of the opinion that learned Advocate for the petitioner has been able to make out sufficient cause as noted hereinabove, the submission of learned Advocate for the respondents that the application ought to have been rejected as he did not show the sufficient cause, cannot be countenanced. Under such circumstances in the considered opinion of this Court, application below Exh. 86 for issuance of witness summons could not be termed as an abuse of the process of the Court as warranting its rejection. 19. As regards the issue of the said application having been moved belatedly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the fact of such an application for issuance of witness summons being the right of a party to apply at any stage, the aspect of belatedness would pale into insignificance. Furthermore, it would also be relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has also inter alia observed that an application for grant of witness summons would not be refused on the ground that such an application might delay trial of the suit. Under such circumstances, the aspect of the application being filed belatedly, would not be an aspect, which would have any bearing on the maintainability of such an application. Under such circumstances, the aspect of the application being filed belatedly, would not be an aspect, which would have any bearing on the maintainability of such an application. 19.1 Insofar as the issue of the application being filed inspite of a direction of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2022 directing the learned Trial Court to preferably decide the civil suits within a period of six months and also containing a direction to parties to co-operate for disposal, yet such an application being preferred. In the considered opinion of this Court, while the order in question using the word “preferably”, denoting the intent of the Court that as far as possible the suits are to be decided within the time frame of six months yet the time frame is not be treated as being mandatory. Furthermore in the considered opinion of this Court even if such a direction was mandatory in nature, yet such a direction would not preclude any of the parties from exercising any legal remedies available to them. In the considered opinion of this Court, a mandatory direction for deciding the litigation within a specific period of time, would not have the effect of obliterating the legal remedies which a party has or could avail of, for redressal of any grievance or for grant of any positive remedy. Thus a party availing a remedy available under the law, would not and cannot be termed as an abuse of the process of the Court inspite of such remedy being availed of during existence of an order directing the litigation to be decided within a specific time frame. 19.2 Insofar as the aspect of the application for witness summons inter alia for production of the FSL report having been preferred inspite of an earlier application preferred for production of the said document being rejected upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the said application being an abuse of the process of the Court, would also be an argument, which would not help the cause of the respondents herein. It would be pertinent to note here that application for production of document more particularly for production of the report of the FSL, had been rejected more particularly on the ground of such document not being the original or certified copy. It would be pertinent to note here that application for production of document more particularly for production of the report of the FSL, had been rejected more particularly on the ground of such document not being the original or certified copy. Upon such application being rejected, more particularly since the law does not prohibit an application for issuance of witness summons, for production of a document after the application for production of the said document had been rejected on the ground of the document not being its original, therefore, the petitioner could have rightfully applied for issuance of witness summons for production and whereas the fact of the application for production having been rejected would not act as estoppel against such application. Furthermore, as noted hereinabove, since rejection was on the ground that the document sought to be produced was not the original, would be an additional ground in support of the case of the petitioner for moving such an application. Again it would be relevant to mention here that the earlier application for production had been rejected also on the count that the application for production was belated and whereas since an application for issuance of witness summons could be moved at any stage, therefore also moving of such application post rejection of application for production of document, could not be termed as an abuse of the process of the Court more particularly since the petitioner was availing a remedy which was available to him under the law. 20. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel reported in 2022 (4) SCC 181 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter alia reiterated the scope of exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court. Paragraph no. 15 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice”. 20.1 Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while this Court is conscious about the limited jurisdiction available to it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and whereas it appears that the instant case would be covered under the exceptions to the normal rule as set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above paragraph. In the considered opinion of this Court, a legal flaw has been committed by the learned Civil Court in rejecting application Exh. 86 for issuance of witness summons more particularly since it appears that the exercise of powers by the learned Civil Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (supra). It would also be pertinent to mention that the final finding of rejection also could not be justified and discretionary relief is required to be granted more particularly since it would appear that non-grant would result into miscarriage of justice. It would also be pertinent to mention that the final finding of rejection also could not be justified and discretionary relief is required to be granted more particularly since it would appear that non-grant would result into miscarriage of justice. In the considered opinion of this Court, as noted hereinabove, the purpose which is intended to be achieved, though this consideration may not be relevant for grant of rejection of the application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC, by moving an application for witness summons had close nexus with the prayers made in the main suit itself. Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013 had been preferred by respondent no.1 – original plaintiff praying for setting aside an ‘agreement of consent dated 15.03.2010-notarized on 17.03.2010. As noted hereinabove the said document had been forwarded to the FSL for examination and opinion and whereas it appears that vide report dated 14.10.2013, the Finger Print Bureau of the FSL had submitted its opinion. By way of witness summons as requested for vide application Exh. 86, the petitioner- original defendant no.1 wanted the witness i.e Police Inspector from D.C.B. Police Station to be summoned for production of the original ‘agreement of consent’. Furthermore the said witness was also summoned to produce the report of the FSL with regard to the ‘agreement of consent’. Upon such document being produced, the author of the FSL report was to be summoned for his examination. From the stand point of the documents which were sought to be produced through the witness and further from the stand point of the witness who is sought to be examined, it would appear that both the aspects, would support the learned Civil Court in coming to a rightful conclusion, which is the ultimate aim of any trial or judicial proceedings. The documents sought to be produced and the witness sought to be examined having a very close nexus with the prayers sought in the civil suit, the witness summons as sought for having not been granted, would in the considered opinion of this Court result in miscarriage of justice and would hamper the endevour of the learned Civil Court to reach a rightful conclusion. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case for exercise of limited jurisdiction to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case for exercise of limited jurisdiction to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. In view of the above discussion and findings in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition deserves consideration. 22. Impugned order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh. 86 in Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013, is quashed and set aside. 23. The learned Civil Court being the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara is directed to grant application below Exh. 86 in Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013 for issuance of witness summons. The date on which the witnesses are required to attend the proceedings etc. would be the discretion of the learned Civil Court to exercise. 24. It is clarified that the learned Civil Court after the summon is issued shall do well to appreciate and follow proposition of law at paragraph no. 16(3) and 16(4) as laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (supra) quoted hereinabove. With these observations and directions the present application stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.