IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the restricted nature of the High Court's interference in the decisions of inferior courts or tribunals.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 12.10.2018 below Exh.135 in Special Civil Suit No.108 of 2005 passed by the learned 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, whereby, the present petitioner - plaintiff was allowed to be cross-examined.

2. Brief facts of the case, are as under:

2.1 For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their original status as plaintiff and defendants. That the petitioner preferred Special Civil Suit No.108 of 2005 against the respondents/orig. defendants in respect of land of revenue survey no.762/3, admeasuring 5665 sq. mtrs of village Dumas, Dist: Surat, for declaration, injunction and for challenging the sale deeds, as prayed for in the plaint.

2.2 That the defendants have filed written statement in the suit. That at the stage of injunction application, the matter reached till this Honourable Court and the appeals being AO no: 320 of 2005 and AO no: 325 of 2005, were disposed of by this Honourable Court vide order dated: 29.11.2005, whereby the order dated: 22.8.2005 passed by the Ld. Trial judge confirming the injunction in terms of para 13(1) of the application was modified by directing the parties to maintain status-quo, till the disposal of the suit. That issues are framed vide Exh.29 on around 17.9.2010. That on around 2.11.2010, the defendant no.1 preferred an application Exh.38, praying for issuance of witness summons to the 'Court duty Constable', DCB police station, mainly for the purpose of producing the FSL report on the record of the case. The said application came to be rejected on 26.7.2011, essentially on the ground that this was a public document and the certified copy of the same can be obtained by the defendant from the concerned court by payment of requisite fees. The defendant no.1 thereafter, preferred an application Exh. 44 on around 3.8.2011, contending that though application was preferred before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for obtaining copy of FSL report, however, an endorsement was made on application that such a report of FSL has not been produced before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate and it was prayed that witness summons be issued to the PI, DCB police station for the purpose of producing the report of FSL on record. That vide order dated 7.2.2012, the said application Exh.44 also came to be rejected. The said order below Exh.44 came to be challenged by the defendant no. 1 before this Honourable Court in SCA no. 4223 of 2012. That vide order dated 11.6.2012, the said petition came to be dismissed with certain observations to the effect that; "...However, so as to ensure that in future, right of the present petitioner is not jeopardized and it is not left in the realm of ambiguity, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be within his right to request for issuance of witness summons; production of FSL report at the stage of oral evidence and the order impugned shall not, in any manner, cause an impediment in pursuing such a request. With these observations the present writ petition stands dismissed in limine. Rule is discharge within no order as to costs". It was further observed that "In the event of defendant finding it necessary to further cross examine the plaintiff, in wake of production of the documents at the stage of defendant's evidence, a request can be made by preferring an application to that effect and the Court shall duly consider the same, keeping in mind the chain of events which have been narrated hereinabove."

2.3 That on around 17.10.2011, the examination in chief of the plaintiff was produced vide Exh.46, whereas, the cross examination was over on 26.11.2012. That the defendant no.1 produced examination-in-chief vide Exh.98 on around 16.3.2015. That thereafter, again the defendant no.1 preferred an application Exh.125 praying for issuance of witness summons to the PI, DCB police Station mainly for the purpose of producing FSL report of M. Case no