IMPORTANT POINT
The right to make an application for witness summons is available to a party at any stage of the suit, but the trial court may refuse to issue summons only if the application is not bona fide, vexatious, or would result in an abuse of the process of the Court.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.

1. The present petitions are filed by the petitioner – original plaintiff by challenging the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 passed application below Exh.151 in Special Civil Suit No.02 of 2009 by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham in Special Civil Application No.7050 of 2024, and the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 passed application below Exh.156 in Special Civil Suit No.02 of 2009 by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham in Special Civil Application No.7076 of 2024, as well as the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed application below Exh.154 in Special Civil Suit No.02 of 2009 by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham in Special Civil Application No.7134 of 2024, whereby the said applications were filed for issuance of witness summons to Sub-Registrar, Gandhidhar, which were rejected.

2. Since the issues involved in the present petitions are identical in nature, for the sake of convenience and brevity, Special Civil Application No.7050 of 2024 is considered as leading matter.

3. Brief facts of the case are as such that the dispute pertains to land situated at open Plot No.162, Ward No. 6/A, Industrial Area, Gandhidham Sq. admeasuring 868.95 meters. It is the case of the petitioner - original plaintiff that the petitioner has filed Special Civil Suit No.02 of 2009 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham- Kutch praying for declaration that the defendants may not take away the possession of the suit plot illegally from the petitioner. Further, the petitioner also prayed that the power of attorney dated 20.05.1997 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and ought to be cancelled and that based on such false power of attorney. Registered Lease No.6947 dated 21.11.2006 is also cancelled. The petitioner further prayed that registered sale deed no.3924 based on false power of attorney of mother of def no.1, executed by Def No.2 in favour of Def No.3 is also illegal and false and that registered sale deed No.991 dated 20.02.2008 executed by Def No.3 in favor of Def No.4 is also illegal and void. The petitioner also prayed that both the entries of the said registered sale deeds are directed to be cancelled by the Def No.7. In the same way, the petitioner prayed that def No.5 be directed to remove name of def no.3 and 4 from the suit land and to enter the name of the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for the def no.3 initiate appropriate action against the defendants for their illegal acts and a declaration that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit properties. The petitioner also prayed for that the a declaration that defendant No.4 may not illegally snatch the possession of the suit property from the plaintiff. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the defendant no.5 filed their written statement below Exh.18/B and their list of documents.

It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the defendant no.7 filed their written statement below Exh.22/B on 29.01.2009. On 03.03.2009, the defendant no.4 also filed their written statement below Exh.27/B. On 31.12.2009, the defendant no.1 filed written statement below Exh.31/B. In the suit issues came to be framed below Exh.66 on 01.01.2021. In the suit, the witness of the defendant no.7 also filed examination in chief below Exh.83 on 30.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred application below Exh.86 to reopen the right of the petitioner - original plaintiff to lead evidence, which came to be allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner – original plaintiff also filed list of original documents below Exh.90. Thereafter, the petitioner plaintiff tendered his examination in chief below Exh.91 on 25.11.2021. Thereafter, the original plaintiff came to be cross examined on 03.03.2022 and 05.03.2022. Thereafter, witness of the plaintiff being one Sanjaybhai also tendered his examination in chief and was thereafter cross examined below Exh.144 on