ORDER T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The dismissal of I.A. No. 12 for summoning the Secretary of T.N. Kote Gram Panchayat and permitting the Plaintiff to examine him was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that there are materials on records and that the Secretary did not have documents with him. It is this order that is being challenged. 2. Heard both the Counsel. 3. Normally in trial any party should be allowed to conduct the trial in the way he chooses by examining his witnesses, by summoning the documents before the authorities and if necessary send the documents for expert's opinion either directly or under Order 26, Rule 10A. This proceeding cannot be stopped in mid way and for every now and then the High Court cannot be disturbed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. If that be the case, no trial would be completed and for every small incident the party should go in revision. The word "case decided" which occur in Section 115 has not been properly appreciated. Summoning the documents can never be the case decided. Anyhow, against that no Civil Revision Petition will lie normally. But when the trial Court refuses to exercise the jurisdiction and permit the Plaintiff to conduct the case in a manner not known in law certainly for such non-exercise of proper jurisdiction this Court can interfere. It is true, the learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently contends that it is the intention to protract. According to him no useful purpose will be served by the Secretary being summoned to produce any document or examining him. He even goes to the extent of saying that the Secretary is called upon to speak something against the documents which is already available on record. Certainly, the Respondent's Counsel is not appearing for that witness nor he can prevent the summoning the witness, the Secretary T.N. Kote Gram Panchayat. As the man in-charge of Gram Panchayat, a quasi judicial body, the Secretary is expected to follow some rules and act within the provisions of Gram Panchayat Act, and the documents he is bound to maintain under the provisions of the Act are the public documents and should be made available. Certainly, he is the man to speak about the documents whether for or against. 4. In the above circumstances, dismissal of the application is not proper and consequently the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Certainly, he is the man to speak about the documents whether for or against. 4. In the above circumstances, dismissal of the application is not proper and consequently the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A. No. 12 for summoning is permitted. It is necessary to place on record the fact that summoning of document or a person can be done by procedural aspect without calling upon a Judge to exercise the judicial powers on that. Unfortunately the procedure has not been followed and even for summoning, interlocutory applications are sought to be filed. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure must be strictly applied and for summoning pay the process with a memo to summon the person through the Court and serve him through bailiff shall be enough. Even the party can apply for hand over summons to serve on the witness to be present in the court. The Courts are directed to follow this and avoid interlocutory applications being filed for summoning the witness or the documents.