ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers: “a. Your Lordships may be please to issue writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 3/2/2023 passed below exhibit no.37 in Special civil Suit No.125/2011 pending before Ld.Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal and thereby allowing the application at exhibit no.37 Annexure `A’ colly. b. Pending adjudication of the present writ petition, your lordships, may be please to stay the proceedings of the Special civil suit no.125/2011 pending before Ld.Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, Annexure `A’ colly. C. xxxxx” 2. The brief facts, as stated in the memo of the petition, are such that the present petitioner no.1 purchased the open land admeasuring 873-8 sq.yards situated at plot No.32 of R.S.No.40/1 in Kangashiali village of Lodhika taluka of Rajkot district from present opponent no.3 vide sale deed dated 28.2.2008 bearing registration no.2038 before Sub-Registrar’s office Gondal and the said sale deed was executed by the power of attorney (Amit S Mehta) of the present opponent no.3; that the present petitioner nos.2 to 5 purchased the above mentioned property from the present petitioner no.1 through registered sale deed bearing number 494212 and 11770 dated 25.11.2008; that the present opponent no.3 claiming that the sale deed bearing registration no.2038 on 28.2.2008 was out of her knowledge and in 2010, when she came to know about the sale of her property, she then lodged a complaint and executed a sale deed of the above mentioned property in favour of the present opponent nos.1 and 2 where the present opponent nos.1 and 2 purchased the above mentioned property vide sale deed bearing registration no.6539 on 27.9.2011 before the Sub- registrar’s office, Lodhika. The present opponents filed the Special Civil Suit No.125 of 2011 for declaration, permanent injunction and vacant possession of the land in question. The present petitioners submitted an application at Exh.27 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC’ for short) to reject the plaint on the ground of suit barred by law; the said application was rejected vide order dated 5.3.2020. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application below Exh.37 for raising additional issues, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2023, which is challenged in this petition. 3. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application below Exh.37 for raising additional issues, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2023, which is challenged in this petition. 3. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Hemal Shah for the petitioners submitted that the subordinate court failed to understand the concept of `necessary party’ and thus erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners; that the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC were not properly interpreted; that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the citation relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioners; that the issues which are sought to be framed by filing this application are necessary for adjudication of the lis and therefore the said application ought to have been allowed. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Hemal Shah for the petitioners has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co Ltd V/s Dhulabhai Kodarbhai Vankar of this Court decided on 13.11.2008 in Special Civil Application No.11105 of 2008; (ii) Proprietor of Ganesh Cotton Ratibhai Ambabhai Pambhar V/s Krishna Textile Corporation of this Court decided on 29.11.2019 in Special Civil Application No.6766 of 2019’ (iii) Patel Dhanjibhai Ambaram V/s Navinchandra Vrajlal Ved of this Court decided on 1.10.2021 passed in Civil Revision Application No.122 of 2016 and submitted that the issue of limitation is required to be framed and without framing the said issue, the point of limitation could not have been decided by the learned trial Court. 3.3 He, therefore, prayed to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order and in turn, allow the application filed at Exh.37 before the learned trial court in the suit. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.N.J.Shah for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order is passed after properly considering the facts of the case, the provisions of law and the settled principles of law; that the learned trial Court has given specific findings in the impugned order for not framing the additional issues as suggested in the impugned application below Exh.37; that the application below Exh.27 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioners herein was already dismissed by the learned trial Court by giving a finding that the suit is within the period of limitation and therefore the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application at Exh.37 on this count. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.N.J.Shah, further, added to submit that the suit is filed in the year 2011, the written statement was filed on 19.3.2012 and 2.4.2012 respectively by the defendants, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed in the year 2018 which was dismissed on 5.3.2020, thereafter, the impugned application at Exh.37 was filed on 2.12.2020, the same was decided on 3.2.2023. He submitted that thereafter the dates were sought before the learned trial Court in the suit on twelve occasions by the petitioners and no date is sought by the respondents, which goes to show that the petitioners who are the defendants in the suit want to delay the proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that though the learned trial Court, in the impugned order has directed the parties to complete the proceedings within three months so as to conclude the case within a period of six months and no adjournment for more than seven days shall be given to the parties, the petitioners- defendants sought for so long adjournments, which shows the conduct of the petitioners to delay the proceeding of the suit. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss this petition. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and also perused the material placed on record, more particularly, the impugned order. 6. The impugned application at Exh.37 is filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, for framing additional issues as follows: “1. Whether the suit is bad for the non joinder of necessary party? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation?” 7. The learned trial Court passed the impugned order by referring to Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, which provides the ample vide discretion to the Court with regard to the amend and striking out the issues, issues may at any time before passing a decree be amended or additionally framed as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy. 8. 8. Keeping in mind the above provision, the learned trial Court referred to Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC to determine whether the issue no.1 sought to be framed as referred to above is required to be framed or not and concluded, after discussing the facts and submissions in detail, that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants and therefore as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving a fact is upon the person who assert the facts, if the plaintiff is asserting the fact that the sale deed has been executed without the authority and consent of plaintiff no.3 by her power of attorney Amit S Maheta then the burden of proving this fact rests upon the shoulder of plaintiff no.3 and an issue in this regard is already framed at issue no.2 vide Exh.25. The learned trial Court further held that as regards joining Amit S Maheta as the defendant on account of being a necessary party, the issue and relief prayed for by the plaintiff is limited and concerned only with the question whether the sale deed of suit property has been executed by the plaintiff no.3 through her power of attorney Amit S Maheta and whether such power is delegated to the power of attorney holder is a question of fact at which the parties are variance and required to be adjudicated by this Court; the disputed power of attorney holder is neither the seller or purchaser nor any stake holder in the execution of the sale deed, but except to the agent of his principal and all the reliefs prayed for in the suit can be adjudicated without joining him as party. 9. So far as the second issue sought to be added as referred to hereinabove, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the issue of limitation is already rejected while rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the petitioners and therefore the same need not be framed. As regards the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners that the issue of limitation cannot be decided without framing the issue, the said point of suit being barred by limitation was raised by the petitioners-defendants in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. As regards the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners that the issue of limitation cannot be decided without framing the issue, the said point of suit being barred by limitation was raised by the petitioners-defendants in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. Therefore, the learned trial Court had to decide the said issue of limitation at the stage of deciding Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and it was necessary for the learned trial Court to decide the said issue at that stage to come to the conclusion of proceeding with the suit further or to reject the plaint. 10. In this regard, it will be fruitful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court decided on 26.3.2021 in the case of Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation, Through Its Partner, Pravin Dharamshibhai Lakhani V/s Sarine Technologies Limited Through its Authorized Signatory Manoj Kumar in Special Civil Application No.5528 of 2021, wherein it is observed in paragraphs 5 to 5.4 and 6 as under: “5. While there is no gainsaying that the court below has given the germane reasons as above to find the framing of additional issue to be not necessary and for rejecting Exh.212 application, and we are in agreement with the order passed by the court below, it is Order XIV, Rule 1, CPC deals with framing of issues. The issues arise when a material propositions of fact or law are asserted by one party and denied by the other. It is such material propositions which would be translated into framing of issues by the court. The issues may be of fact or may be of law. 5.1 As per Rule 3 of Order XIV, the court may frame issues from any of these materials-(a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. The issues essentially are thus points in dispute originating from the material assertion by one party and the rebuttal thereof by the other. They arise out and relate to the facts pleaded. The issues essentially are thus points in dispute originating from the material assertion by one party and the rebuttal thereof by the other. They arise out and relate to the facts pleaded. 5.2 Now the issue sought to be framed by the defendants in this case is “Whether the parties prove that they provided the documents....”. It is not fathomable in law whether the aspect relating whether the parties have provided certain documents in relation to the controversy, can become the subject matter of framing of an issue. For sake of consideration, even if there is non-production of any document by either party, such position would connect with evidence part and may or may not result into a lacuna in merits, in course of trial. When the issues are to steam from material pleadings and the assertions and denial thereof, whether a party has provided document or has produced document other than the relevant facts in controversy, cannot be a subject matter of drawing an issue. 5.3 The petitioners' case is that relevant documents were not produced, but other than such came to be produced by the plaintiff, therefore the additional issue may be framed. The question whether parties prove that they have provided particular documents or that they have provided the proper documents, would not properly fall within the purview of framing of an issue having regard to the legal concept of 'issue' to be framed in the suit as envisaged in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5.4 The above aspect apart, it is well settled that in exercise of framing of issues, no rights of the parties are crystalised. Nor the issues themselves reflect anything on the rights of the parties. Issues are framed to make the sphere of controversy concise and precise. When by framing or non-framing of issue, party's rights are not affected much less adjudicated, the court could countenance the submission on part of the respondent that such matters are not to be validly gone into in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. When the parties lead evidence, the aspects of merit, even if not properly reflected in the framing of issues, could indeed be taken care of. 6. When the parties lead evidence, the aspects of merit, even if not properly reflected in the framing of issues, could indeed be taken care of. 6. When, speaking generally, framing or non-framing of issue does not imping upon any right of any party in the suit, and considered specifically in the context of the facts of this case, when there is no prejudice to occur, and the evidence could be led by both the sides including the petitioners in respect of points in dispute and the controversy, the case and insistence for framing additional issue as above, which even otherwise has no substance, falls flat.” 11. At this stage, it is required to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Garment Craft V/ s Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 , more particularly, paragraph nos.15 to 17 therein, where it was held that High Courts while exercising powers under Article 227 does not act as appellate authority and cannot reappreciate evidence and the jurisdiction exercised under Article 227 is in nature of correctional jurisdiction to set aside grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of process of law and High Court cannot substitute its own view on merits. 12. In the case of hand, as discussed hereinabove, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order which needs to be interfered with in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. As regards the conduct of the petitioners- defendants, as submitted by learned advocate Mr.N.J.Shah for the respondents herein, the learned trial Court has already fixed a time schedule while passing the impugned order. It is expected that as now this petition is dismissed, the parties will cooperate before the learned trial Court for concluding the suit, as it is pending since 2011 for adjudication.