JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order, whereby the application of the petitioner dated 17.05.2016 submitted alongwith the application for summoning the other kanungo to prepare excerpt afresh, in accordance with law, has been dismissed, simply on the ground that cross-examination was already concluded. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that since the case is based by laying claim to nature of the property as ancestral, in support of the averments, revenue excerpt is essential and necessary for placing on record and in the absence of the same, the suit may be dismissed. The kanungo did not bring the complete record as the record was only upto particular pedigree. The Court below remained oblivious of the fact that cross-examination was concluded subsequent to the application and amounted to fill up the loopholes as observed. The respondents have already been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 02.02.2018. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the revision petition on merits. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Sachdeva, for, though there was no diligence in not concluding the examination-in-chief of the witnesses as the interrogatories had already been served upon the kanungo. If he had faulted in not bringing the complete record, indulgence of the Court should have been sought. Be that as it may, the impugned order, under challenge, as per the facts noticed above, in my view, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it is not an attempt to fill up the loopholes, particularly noticing the date of application as 15.09.2016. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and the present revision petition stands allowed.