ORDER : 1. Draft amendment, which is tendered, is allowed and the same shall be carried out forthwith. The matter is taken up for hearing. 2. The present petition is filed praying for the following reliefs: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat on application below Exh. 79 in Special Civil Suit No 396 of 2010, in the interest of justice. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special Civil Suit No 396 of 2010 pending in the Court of Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of impugned order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat on application below Exh. 79 in Special Civil Suit No 396 of 2010, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their original status as plaintiffs and defendants. The dispute in the suit is with respect to land bearing Survey No. 264/2 admeasuring 6475 sq. meters situated at Village Katargam, Taluka-Choryasi, District-Surat (hereinafter 'the Suit Land'). That the Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2010 is filed by the plaintiffs inter alia seeking a declaration that Possession Receipt dated 15.12.2000 as well as Sale Deed dated 29.3.2007 (registered on 23.4.2008) conveying the suit being) executed in favour of the Defendants is null and void. 3.2 The Defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement below Exh. 35, controverting the false and concocted case of the Plaintiffs and placed on record documents showing the longstanding, use, occupation and possession of the Suit Land by the Defendants. Issues were framed below Exh. 38 on 4.8.2016. After framing of the issues, the suit was listed for the Plaintiffs to lead their evidence on multiple dates but the Plaintiff sought adjournment applications to delay the suit further. Issues were framed below Exh. 38 on 4.8.2016. After framing of the issues, the suit was listed for the Plaintiffs to lead their evidence on multiple dates but the Plaintiff sought adjournment applications to delay the suit further. The Plaintiffs did not lead evidence for a long time despite sufficient opportunities. The attempts of the Plaintiffs to seek adjournment to delay the suit and keep it pending can be seen from the Rojkam. After considering the attempts made by the Plaintiffs to delay the suit, the Ld. Trial Judge vide order dated 07.12.2019 closed the plaintiffs right to lead evidence. Thereafter due to outbreak of Covid-19, the suit could not proceed for a short span of time. The suit was then transferred from the court of Ld. 17th Senior Civil Judge, Surat to Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat on 21.8.2021. 3.3 Thereafter belatedly on 17.2.2023, the plaintiffs filed an application vide Exh. 79 for re-opening the stage of leading evidence. The respondents filed this application after almost 3 years and 3 months of closure of their right to lead evidence w.e.f. 07.12.2019. 3.4 The learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 18.12.2023 partly allowed the application below Exh.79 of plaintiffs for re- opening the stage of evidence, albeit with costs. 3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Ld. 4th Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exh.79 in Special Civil Suit No. 396 of 2010, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Aadit R. Sanjanwala for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani with learned advocate Mr. Meet D. Kakadia for the respective respondents. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala has drawn my attention towards the impugned order which is passed below Exh.79 application, whereby, the Court has allowed to reopen the rights of the original plaintiffs - present respondents by imposing cost on the plaintiffs of Rs.3,000/- to the defendants and Rs.2,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Surat. He has submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2010, whereby, the issues are framed on 04.08.2016, after verifying the pleadings of the parties by the trial Court below Exh.38. He has submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2010, whereby, the issues are framed on 04.08.2016, after verifying the pleadings of the parties by the trial Court below Exh.38. Thereafter, the present respondents – original plaintiffs have not cared to proceed with the suit proceedings though the issues were already framed and evidence was required to be adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial Court had no option left but to reject the application for adjournment and closed the rights of the plaintiffs to adduce the evidence vide order dated 07.12.2019. He has submitted that merely because the amendment application is pending for consideration before the trial Court is not a good ground to not adduce the evidence for a period of three years after framing of issues and thereafter, the right is closed and also after a period of three years, no application is filed before the trial Court to reopen the right to adduce the evidence by the plaintiffs. The application for re-opening the right to adduce the evidence came to be filed on 17.02.2023 and he has further submitted that thereafter the Court has not considered the above aspect while allowing the application and merely by giving only one reason that such application is required to be allowed in the interest of justice by imposing cost, the application came to be allowed. He has further submitted that even during the period of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter also, the plaintiff has not taken any action and therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the reopening right to adduce the evidence of the plaintiffs is per se illegal, improper, unjust and also amounts to perverse finding and view taken by the trial Court can be considered as arbitrary and required to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the trial Court while deciding application at Exh.79 for reopening the stage of leading the evidence, is contrary to the other finding given in the order itself and conclusion is based only on the consideration that in the interest of justice and by imposing cost, such application is required to be passed. He has further submitted that the trial Court while deciding application at Exh.79 for reopening the stage of leading the evidence, is contrary to the other finding given in the order itself and conclusion is based only on the consideration that in the interest of justice and by imposing cost, such application is required to be passed. He has further submitted that there is no justification to file reopening application after a long delay of three years and three months and therefore, he prays that the present petition is required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Court below by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani has submitted that the application which is filed for amendment is also pending and therefore, petitioners were under impression that the stage of evidence is yet not to be proceeded with. The application for amendment of the plaint is filed before the trial Court below Exh.56 and thereafter, the trial Court on 05.11.2019 has closed the right to adduce the evidence, as the plaintiffs or their lawyers were not present on that day and which is subsequently came to be recorded in the proceedings on 07.12.2019. He has further submitted that in these background and thereafter, the Covid-19 Pandemic occurred and Courts were not working and even the Hon’ble Apex Court has also granted the exemption from the period of limitation till March, 2022. Thereafter, the application which is filed below Exh.56 under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. came to be allowed vide order dated 28.03.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiffs – present respondents have filed the application for reopening their rights before the trial Court after filing necessary amended plaint etc. before the trial Court and therefore, it cannot be said that there is some mala-fide intention on the part of the present respondents who are otherwise plaintiffs in the suit and they have no benefit if the proceedings are delayed and the Court below has rightly considered all these aspects and used its discretion by balancing the rights of the parties by imposing cost and allowed the application which is filed below Exh.79 vide order dated 18.12.2023 for reopening the stage of adducing the evidence. He has further submitted that even the present petition which is filed after almost a period of four months from the date of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, is also required to be considered appropriately and therefore, he submits that the petition is required to be dismissed as the trial Court has rightly considered the aspects to the fact that in the interest of justice, the opportunity is required to be granted to the plaintiffs to proceed with the suit and cost is also imposed by the trial Court. He has submitted that therefore the trial Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction and in view of the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court, when the trial Court has judiciously exercised its discretion and when no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and also considered the fact that it is an undisputed fact that the suit proceedings came to be filed in the year 2010, issues are framed in the year 2016 and the application for amendment in the suit is filed in the year 2018, which was pending, during that period in the year 2019, as the plaintiffs or their advocate were not present, the trial Court has closed the right to adduce the evidence in the year 2019. Thereafter, Covid-19 Pandemic period has started which continued till 2022 and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court upto 2022, even the period of limitation is required to be considered appropriately. Thereafter, it transpires that the application below Exh.56 for amendment in the pleadings came to be allowed vide order dated 28.03.2022 and thereafter, it seems that the amended plaint is filed on the record and thereafter in the month of February, 2023, the present application came to be filed for reopening the rights to adduce the evidence. 8. Thereafter, it transpires that the application below Exh.56 for amendment in the pleadings came to be allowed vide order dated 28.03.2022 and thereafter, it seems that the amended plaint is filed on the record and thereafter in the month of February, 2023, the present application came to be filed for reopening the rights to adduce the evidence. 8. It is true that there is some delay or negligence on the part of the present respondents, who are the original plaintiffs, in praying for reopening of the stage of evidence, but fact remains that from 2019 to 2023, there were certain proceedings by way of Order VI Rule 17 which were also pending and the fact remains that during that period, the Covid-19 Pandemic has also occurred. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that in the interest of justice, if the plaintiffs are not given opportunity to adduce the evidence, then the valuable right to them is jeopardized, as they have already filed necessary pleadings in the suit. Therefore, the trial Court, after taking into consideration some delay or negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, has imposed cost and has given opportunity by allowing application below Exh.79 in Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2010, whereof, I found that the trial Court has rightly used its discretion. The parties to proceed in the suit proceeding with more vigilant manner than what has happened in the present case, but, this does not preclude the present respondents- original plaintiffs to pray before the trial Court to give one more opportunity to adduce the evidence, more particularly, when there is a natural calamity by way of Covid-19 Pandemic and that period lasted for more than two years. Also, considering the fact that it is bona-fide impression of the plaintiffs that the application for amendment of suit is also pending and thereafter, the evidence is required to be adduced. Also, considering the fact that it is bona-fide impression of the plaintiffs that the application for amendment of suit is also pending and thereafter, the evidence is required to be adduced. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in mind the aspect of substantial justice and the principle of fair trial and opportunity to the parties, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error or mistake in allowing the application below Exh.79 in Special Civil Suit No. 396 of 2010 and has rightly used its discretion by taking a balance view by imposing cost on the plaintiffs and looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, that order is required to be upheld. It is always expected that the parties should be vigilant in proceeding the matter and should also try to follow the necessary provisions provided under the law, more particularly, under the provisions of C.P.C. and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This Court is in agreement with the view taken and the findings given by the trial Court. 9. It is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Garments Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 , more particularly, relevant paragraph Nos.15 to 17, which read as under: “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. 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 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. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if 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, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 17. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if 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, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 17. The factum that the counsel for the appellant had applied for the certified copy would show that the counsel for the appellant was aware that the ex-parte decree had been passed on the account of failure to lead defence evidence. This would not, however, be a good ground and reason to set aside and substitute the opinion formed by the trial court that the appellant being incarcerated was unable to lead evidence and another chance should be given to the appellant to lead defence evidence. The discretion exercised by the trial court in granting relief, did not suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or was not a finding so perverse that it was unsupported by evidence to justify it. There could be some justification for the respondent to argue that the appellant was possibly aware of the ex-parte decree and therefore the submission that the appellant came to know of the ex-parte decree only on release from jail on 6th May 2017 is incorrect, but this would not affect the factually correct explanation of the appellant that he was incarcerated and could not attend the civil suit proceedings from 6th October 2015 to 6th May 2017. If it was felt that the application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed belatedly, the court could have given an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay and costs could have been imposed. The facts as known, equally apply as grounds for condonation of delay. It is always important to take a holistic and overall view and not get influenced by aspects which can be explained. Thus, the reasoned decision of the trial court on elaborate consideration of the relevant facts did not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.” 10. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court has very limited jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the present petition is required to be dismissed. 11. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court has very limited jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the present petition is required to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.