ORDER : 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing and setting aside the order passed below Exhibit 175 dated 19.01.2026 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kathor, District - Surat in new Special Civil Suit No. 206 of 2017 (Special Civil Suit No. 233 of 2015). 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jamshed Kavina for the petitioner. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the suit is filed by the plaintiff - petitioner for the cancellation of the registered sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 2 is a son of defendant No. 1. It is submitted that the plaintiff has closed his side of leading evidence. It is submitted that burden of proving issue No. 5 rests on the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. After recording evidence of defendant No. 2, below Exhibit No. 161, defendant No. 2 prayed for issuance of the witness summons to District Inspector Land Records, Surat, on 10.03.2025. On the same day, the learned Court below issued witness summons and witness from DILR office was examined at Exh. 162. The cross examination of the said witness was concluded on 14.07.2025. Thereafter, the defendant No. 2 filed an application below Exh. 175 for a prayer to appoint a Court Commissioner to record the position and location of the suit property. It is contended that plaintiffs are asserting their ownership rights on survey No 124 paiki land whereas defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are asserting their rights under the impugned sale deed qua Block No. 116 paiki. It is further submitted that on the date of presenting the application Exhibit 175 on 14.08.2025, learned advocate for the defendant No. 2 made an endorsement on application that "as an application of appointment of Court Commissioner for taking measurement of the land given today on 14.08.2025. I do not press this application". It is therefore contended that once the witness from the office of DILR has been examined, the learned advocate for the defendant No. 2 without any permission being sought for from the Hon'ble Court, cannot make any such endorsement on a disposed off application. 4. I do not press this application". It is therefore contended that once the witness from the office of DILR has been examined, the learned advocate for the defendant No. 2 without any permission being sought for from the Hon'ble Court, cannot make any such endorsement on a disposed off application. 4. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the learned trial Court by appointing District Inspector Land Records, has not only exceeded its jurisdiction but has also failed to appreciate the fact that the burden of proving issue No. 5 is on the shoulder of defendant No. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 2 cannot be permitted to prove issue No. 5 by having Court Commission. In the background of the aforesaid facts, learned advocate for the petitioner has prayed for the relief of quashing and setting aside of the order. 5. Having considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the paper book as well as the papers annexed with the petition, the dispute is undoubtedly with regard to the location and identification of the suit land, plaintiffs are asserting their ownership rights in Survey No. 124 paiki land whereas defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are asserting their right of ownership pursuant to a registered sale deed for the land bearing Block No. 116 paiki. An application to issue witness summons was filed and the same was allowed by learned trial Court on 10.03.2025. Thereafter, oral evidence of Mr. Nikunj Rameshbhai Bagdiya, Officer of DILR Office was recorded at Exhibit 162, after completion of the cross- examination of the said witness on 14.07.2025, it appears that on Exhibit 161 an endorsement of learned advocate for the defendant No. 2 is found, which states that "as an application for appointment of Court Commissioner for taking measurement of the land given today on 14.08.2025. I do not press this application". Below this endorsement, it appears that the learned advocate for defendant No. 2 has signed on 14.08.2025. This Court is shocked and surprised on noticing the fact that once the application, Exhibit 161 has been disposed of by passing an appropriate order of issuance of witness summons, under what circumstances the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kathor permitted, learned advocate for defendant No. 2 to make such endorsement on 14.08.2025. Moreover, the evidence of the witness of DILR office had been recorded. Moreover, the evidence of the witness of DILR office had been recorded. This Court on perusal of page Nos. 86, 87 of the paper book do not find any order passed by learned trial Court pursuant to an endorsement made by learned advocate for defendant No. 2 on 14.08.2025. 6. This Court while examining the order impugned in the present petition has prima facie found that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kathor has taken the proceedings in a very casual manner. In the background of the aforesaid facts, learned advocate for defendant No. 2 Mr. Ajay A Mawawala as can be seen from the application Exhibit 161, who has also made an endorsement on 14.08.2025 is directed to file an affidavit explaining under whose instructions and permission, such endorsement was made on Exhibit 161. Learned advocate for the defendant No. 2 shall also clarify in clear terms that once the evidence of the officer of the DILR was recorded pursuant to the application Exhibit 161, what circumstance compelled him to make such endorsement. Learned advocate shall also state that whether any written permission of the concerned learned Principal Senior Civil Judge was obtained before making such endorsement on Exhibit 161 on 14.08.2025. 7. The Registrar Judicial of this Court is directed to call for the explanation from the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kathod District - Surat regarding the endorsement made by learned advocate for defendant No. 2 on 14.08.2025 below Exhibit 161, in the background of above observed fact. The explanation be also called from the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kathor that before the endorsement dated 14.08.2025 was made by learned advocate for defendant No. 2, on Exh. 161, whether any order permitting him to make such endorsement was passed or not. This Court has taken very serious note of the fact that learned advocates who are the officers of the Court after knowing fully well that the application Exh. 161 has been granted and the witness summons was issued and the evidence of the witness was recorded vide Exh. 162, very casually makes an endorsement of not pressing Exh. 161 as if he is gracing the proceedings. 8. Considering the overall aspect, issue Notice making it returnable on 06.04.2026 to the respondents herein. 161 has been granted and the witness summons was issued and the evidence of the witness was recorded vide Exh. 162, very casually makes an endorsement of not pressing Exh. 161 as if he is gracing the proceedings. 8. Considering the overall aspect, issue Notice making it returnable on 06.04.2026 to the respondents herein. In the meantime, the proceedings of new Special Civil Suit No. 206 of 2017 (Special Civil Suit No. 233 of 2015) are stayed till further orders. 9. Direct service for today is permitted.