JUDGMENT :

J.C. Doshi, J.

1. Invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass an order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed below application Exh.119 in Special Civil Suit No.187 of 2006 in Annex-A, by the Learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) and YOUR LORDSHIPS may be further pleased to reject the application Exh.119 filed by the Respondents-original Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.187 of 2006,

(B) During the pendency and until the final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed below application Exh 119 in Special Civil Suit No. 187 of 2006 in Annex-A, by the Learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural),

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph No. (B) above;

(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondents - original plaintiffs have instituted a Special Civil Suit No.187 of 2016 against the petitioners – defendants claiming, specific performance of oral agreement alleged to have been entered into with the petitioners for the sale of the immovable property consisting of bungalow situated in Muni Hemchandra Acharya Co-operative Housing Society, known as ‘Bhikhubhai Bungalows’.

2.1 The petitioners, having been served, resisted the suit of the plaintiffs by filing the written statement denying execution of the oral agreement with the clarification that the negotiation between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 remained inconclusive and did not yield into any concluded contract.

2.2 The respondents – plaintiffs claim that they recorded the talks between the parties, which establish that the concluded contract was executed. The transcripts of the alleged oral talk was placed on record, which has been denied by the petitioners.

2.3 The multiple documents were produced by the respondents – plaintiffs and the proceeding taken place, including the filing of petition before this Court for exhibiting those documents. An Appeal from Order was also filed, which was disposed of later on passing of the order in proceedings in the suit, pursuant to which the petitioners have preferred Special Civil Application No.743 of 2016 before this Court. Vide order dated 03.10.2016, this Court was pleased to direct the learned trial Court to decide the application Exhibit-104 afresh and to pass appropriate order after examining each of the evidence as admissible evidence.

2.4 Meanwhile, the plaintiffs preferred an application Exhibit-119 seeking a direction to appoint the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL, for short) or any other authorized expert or technical officer as a Commissioner/Receiver to record the voice of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and further, to record the voice before the Honourable Court through such Receiver and compare the same with the cassette (tape) relied upon by the respondents – plaintiffs to give a scientific technical opinion whether the cassette (tape) relied upon, contains the voice of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and to produce report before the learned trial Court and further to issue summons to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory as a witness in the interest of justice. This application was filed on 26.04.2016. Meanwhile, on 28.11.2016, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the learned trial Court was pleased to partly allow the application Exhibit-104 directing that the document produced at Mark-35/3, Mark-35/4, Mark-35/5 and Mark-37/1 to be exhibited. The learned trial Court also passed an order to exhibit the original audio cassette relied upon by the respondents – plaintiffs.

2.5 The petitioners herein challenging the o