JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition filed by the petitioners-original defendants under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.03.2014 passed below Exh.29 and the order dated 04.04.2014 below Exh. 73 passed by the 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Regular Civil Suit No. 194 of 2012.

2. The short facts of the case as transpiring from the record are that the respondents-original plaintiffs have filed the suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 194 of 2012 against the petitioners-original defendants seeking permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit land. The petitioners-defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit contending various grounds. The trial Court framed the issues at Exh. 25 on 10.02.2014. The petitioners-defendants made an application at Exh. 29 requesting the Court to frame an additional issue, as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by law of limitation. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 06.03.2014.

3. It appears that thereafter the respondents-plaintiffs submitted an application for examination of the witnesses, and the Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the plaintiffs was examined at Exh. 71. The said witness was also cross-examined by the petitioners-defendants. After the cross-examination of the said witness was over, an application was given on behalf of the plaintiffs to summon the Court Commissioner who had submitted a report in the suit. The Court having accepted the said application, the Court Commissioner was summoned and he had remained present for his examination. At that time, the petitioners-defendants submitted an application at Exh. 73 seeking to recall the Power of Attorney holder examined on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that certain questions had remained to be asked. The said application Exh. 73 has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2014. Hence, being aggrieved by the said two orders dated 06.03.2014 passed below Exh. 29 and order dated 04.04.2014 below Exh. 73, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Patel for the petitioners. Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents have not joined the link, though the matter was called out twice.

5. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Patel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners-defendants though had not specifically raised the issue of limitation as to how the suit was barred by law of limitation, under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the suit could be dismissed although the limitation has not been set up as a defence. According to him, the trial Court ought to have raised the issue of limitation as prayed for in the application at Exh. 29. He further submitted that the trial Court has also committed an error in not granting the application of the petitioners-defendants at Exh. 73 for recalling the witness of the plaintiffs in the interest of justice as certain questions had remained to be asked to the witness during the course of cross-examination.

6. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Patel, it is required to be noted that the petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus or writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the trial Court, however as per the legal position settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. reported in AIR (2015) SC 3269, judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. The Supreme Court after discussing many earlier decisions with regard to the scope of Article 226 and 227 observed as under :

“22. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai also observed in para 25 o