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. 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 1