JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is against the order dated 5.4.1994 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar passed in Civil Suit No. 34/93, whereby the two applications dated 15.3.94 of the defendant No. 2, the petitioner in this petition, for summoning the witnesses along with the record were rejected. 2. The non-petitioners No. 1 to 4 and 7 others had filed the above mentioned Civil Suit for getting the sale-deed dated 7.7.79 cancelled, for declaration that the ownership in the property in question vests in the plaintiffs by adverse possession and for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The suit was contested and the defendant No. 2 has claimed to be the owner of the property in question. The seven other plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit had handed over the possession of the shops constructed on the disputed property to the defendant No. 2 - petition and thus they have no interest in the matter. 3. The list of witnesses was filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 2 and at Item No. 37 a U.D.C. of the Sales Tax Department alongwith record relating to the statements of non-petitioners Daulat Ram and Ishar Chand is mentioned. 4. It seems that the non-petitioners Ishar Chand and Daulat Ram had moved an application in the Sales Tax Department and Tehsil for issuance of a licence in connection with their business and it is alleged that in that proceedings these two non-petitioners (plaintiffs) had admitted that they are the tenants of the petitioner in the property in question. According to the petitioner, the Sales Tax Department has refused to issue the certified copy of the relevant statements and, therefore, the petitioner- defendant No. 2 moved the learned lower Court for summoning a U.D.C. alongwith the relevant record from the Sales Tax Department and the concerning Tehsil. The applications of the petitioner-defendant No. 2 were rejected. Aggrieved thereby this revision petition has been filed. I have heard arguments of both the sides. ' 5. The plaintiffs' case is that they have acquired the ownership of the property in question by continuous adverse long possession. The applications of the petitioner-defendant No. 2 were rejected. Aggrieved thereby this revision petition has been filed. I have heard arguments of both the sides. ' 5. The plaintiffs' case is that they have acquired the ownership of the property in question by continuous adverse long possession. But according the petitioner the aforesaid two plaintiffs-non-petitioners have admitted in some proceedings in the Sales-tax Department and the Tehsil that they were the tenants of the petitioner-defendant No. 2 and on there basis the petitioner has contended that it is wrong to suggest that the non-petitioners have continuous adverse possession. Evidently a U.D.C. of the concerned Department/Tehsil alongwith the aforesaid relevant record is relevant for deciding the matter involved in the Civil Suit. The view of the learned lower Court that the witness and the relevant record is not relevant in the matter seems to be incorrect. In the list of witnesses a U.D.C. of the concerned Department and the relevant record have been mentioned. In the circumstances, there is no justification on part of the learned lower Court for refusing to summon relevant witness alongwith record already referred in the list of witnesses. 6. The plaintiffs' evidence is stated to have been closed on 7.1.1993 and the applications were moved by the defendant No. 2 on 15.3.94. Even if there is some delay in moving the applications, I am of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the applications should not have been refused merely on account of the delay, because substantial justice has to be done. Refusal to summon the witness and the record on ground of delay is not sustainable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order dated 5.4.94 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar is set aside. The petitioner-defendant No. 2 is allowed to get the concerned clerk alongwith the concerned record summonedRevision allowed. *******