Judgment S.Roy, J. 1. The petitioners filed a suit No. TS 87/1982 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. On a prayer made on their behalf, the learned court below called for a report, which is said to have been submitted by the Anchal Amin, Rajashwar Prasad, from the court of the Additional Collector, Hajipur, Vaishali. An information was received from the office of the Additional Collector that report was not available. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application for time to examine Rajeshwar Prasad. That was rejected by the court below by order dated 31-5-1989. The petitioners filed an application for summoning Rajeshwar Prasad. That was rejected by the court below by order dated 10-6-1989, which has been challenged in this civil revision application. 2. In my opinion, normally evidence should not be shut out and opportunities should be given to the parties wherever necessary by imposing cost for bringing all material evidence on record. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 that once the prayer of the petitioner was rejected, the court below could not have allowed that prayer again. 4. I have already noticed that the Additional Collector had informed the Court that the report of the Anchal Amin was not available. But the report having been found out later on has been sent to the trial court. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the court below ought to have allowed the petitioners prayer by imposing cost. 5. I, therefore, allow this application, quash the order dated 20-6-1989 passed by the learned court below and direct that the petitioners shall file an application in the court below for issuance of summons in dusti-cover for Rajeshwar Prasad and it will be the responsibility of the petitioners to produce him. If they fall to produce him (Rajeshwar Prasad) on the date to be fixed by the court below, no fresh opportunity shall be given. If Rajeshwar Prasad is examined as P. W., the court below shall give an opportunity to opposite party No. 4 to adduce evidence in rebuttal. This order, is subject to payment of cost of Rs. 250 by the petitioners to the opposite party No. 4 in the court below.