Procedural rules serve to advance justice, and denial of evidence crucial for adjudication violates the fair opportunity afforded to parties in a civil suit.

JUDGMENT :

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khadoor Sahib, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff for summoning official witnesses along with the relevant revenue record has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership with respect to the suit property. During the course of plaintiff’s evidence, after examining himself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2, the plaintiff moved an application for summoning official witnesses along with the relevant revenue record. The learned Trial Court, however, dismissed the application vide order dated 18.11.2025 on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to furnish the witness list within the time prescribed and had already availed 15 opportunities. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal and unsustainable, as the evidence sought to be produced is material and indispensable for the effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. It is urged that the relevant revenue record is essential for proper determination of the petitioner’s claim for declaration of ownership. It is further contended that the plaintiff’s evidence has not yet been closed, and the matter continues adjourned for the petitioner’s evidence; therefore, denial of permission to summon the requisite record results in grave prejudice to the petitioner.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Chuhi Ram v. Ram Kumar , Civil Appeal No. 6679 of 1999, decided on 21.11.2000 (SC); Gurjit Singh v. Kartar Singh , CR-1724 of 2020, decided on 01.09.2022 (P&H); Balbir Singh v. Tarsem Singh , CR-6167 of 2015 (O&M), decided on 18.09.2015 (P&H); M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. M/s Steel Strips and Tubes Ltd. , Civil Revision No. 6764 of 2006, decided on 04.05.2007 (P&H); Sham Lal Sharma v. Vinod Kumar , Civil Revision No. 197 of 1988, decided on 16.08.1990 (P&H); Achutananda v. Dhruba Ch. Sahoo , Civil Revision No. 304 of 1986, decided on 06.08.1986 (Orissa HC); Lalitha J. Rai v. Aithappa Rai , Civil Appeal No. 5699 of 1995 decided on 27.04.1995 (SC); Rama Nand v. Subhash , Civil Revision No. 8186 of 2014, decided on 20.11.2015 (P&H); and Smt. M. Ratnamala v. Elishamma @ Elizebeth , C.R.P. No. 4185 of 2007, decided on 01.10.2007 (A.P. HC) in support of arguments advanced.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

5. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondent. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has erred in declining the petitioner’s request, particularly when it is a settled principle that procedural provisions are intended to advance the cause of justice rather than impede it. The revenue record sought to be summoned is evidently material and bears directly upon the adjudication of the petitioner’s claim of ownership; hence, refusal to permit its production results in denial of a fair and adequate opportunity to substantiate the case of the petitioner. The reliance placed by the Trial Court on the number of opportunities earlier availed is misconceived, as the plaintiff’s evidence has neither been closed nor concluded.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and consi