Heard Ms Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rupesh Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondent. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the orders dated 03.09.2025 and 09.10.2025 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2019, as also the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Bareilly in Misc. Civil Case No. 397 of 2025, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act came to be dismissed as not maintainable. The dispute has its genesis in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2019 instituted by the respondent–plaintiff seeking eviction of the petitioner–defendant from a shop situated at Meena Bazar, Mohalla Tanda, near Imambara Baheri, District Bareilly. The plaintiff asserted his ownership over the premises on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1988 and pleaded that the shop in question formed part of Kadri Market, which was constructed during the years 2000–2001. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the shop was let out to the defendant in the year 2003 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- per shop and that the defendant was in occupation of two shops at a total monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. It was alleged that the defendant committed default in payment of rent after August 2018. Consequently, a notice dated 16.01.2019 terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent was issued. Alleging non-compliance with the said notice, the eviction suit came to be instituted. The plaintiff further pleaded that on the same date he had instituted several eviction suits against different tenants occupying various shops in the same market, namely SCC Suit Nos. 4 to 9 of 2019. It was asserted that each of the said suits was filed along with the respective notices terminating tenancy, postal receipts evidencing dispatch, and reply notices submitted by the concerned defendants. According to the plaintiff, owing to the simultaneous filing of multiple suits, an inadvertent and bona fide mistake occurred at the stage of presentation, resulting in the basic documents relating to SCC Suit No. 6 of 2019 being wrongly tagged with the record of SCC Suit No. 7 of 2019 and vice versa. During the course of proceedings, the defence of the defendant was struck off. The plaintiff led his evidence and, during cross-examination, PW-1, after perusing Paper No. 8C2, stated that the said document was the notice issued to the defendant. It was thereafter, at the stage of final arguments, that the plaintiff moved an application dated 19.08.2025 (Paper No.81C) seeking summoning of the relevant documents from the record of SCC Suit No. 7 of 2019. By order dated 03.09.2025, the Trial Court directed summoning of the record of SCC Suit No. 7 of 2019 from the record room. Subsequently, by order dated 09.10.2025, the application was allowed, the Trial Court accepting the explanation furnished by the plaintiff that the omission was bona fide and occurred on account of an inadvertent mistake while filing multiple suits simultaneously. While allowing the application, the Trial Court expressly granted liberty to the defendant to move an application for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination in respect of the documents so summoned. Heard Ms Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rupesh Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondent. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the orders dated 03.09.2025 and 09.10.2025 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2019, as also the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Bareilly in Misc. Civil Case No. 397 of 2025, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act came to be dismissed as not maintainable. The dispute has its genesis in SCC Suit No. 6 of 2019 instituted by the respondent–plaintiff seeking eviction of the petitioner–defendant from a shop situated at Meena Bazar, Mohalla Tanda, near Imambara Baheri, District Bareilly. The plaintiff asserted his ownership over the premises on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1988 and pleaded that the shop in question formed part of Kadri Market, which was constructed during the years 2000–2001. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the shop was let out to the defendant in the year 2003 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- per shop and that the defendant was in occupation of two shops at a total monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. It was alleged that the defendant committed default in payment of rent after August 2018. Consequently, a notice dated 16.01.2019 terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent was issued. Alleging non-compliance with the said notice, the eviction suit came to be instituted. The plaintiff further pleaded that on the same date he had instituted several eviction suits against different tenants occupying various shops in the same market, namely SCC Suit Nos. 4 to 9 of 2019. It was asserted that each of the said suits was filed along with the respective notices terminating tenancy, postal receipts evidencing dispatch, and reply notices submitted by the concerned defendants. According to the plaintiff, owing to the simultaneous filing of multiple suits, an inadvertent and bona fide mistake occurred at the stage of presentation, resulting in the basic documents relating to SCC Suit No. 6 of 2019 being wrongly tagged with the record of SCC Suit No. 7 of 2019 and vice versa. During the course of proceedings, the defence of the defendant was struck off. The plaintiff led his evidence and, during cross-examination, PW-1, after perusing Paper No. 8C2, stated that the said document was the notice issued to the defendant. It was thereafter, at the stage of final arguments, that the plaintiff moved an application dated 19.08.2025 (Paper No.81C) seeking summoning of the relevant documents from the record of SCC Suit No. 7 of 2019. By order dated 03.09.2025, the Trial Court directed summoning of the record of SCC Suit No. 7 of 2019 from the record room. Subsequently, by order dated 09.10.2025, the application was allowed, the Trial Court accepting the explanation furnished by the plaintiff that the omission was bona fide and occurred on account of an inadvertent mistake while filing multiple suits simultaneously. While allowing the application, the Trial Court expressly granted liberty to the defendant to move an application for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination in respect of the documents so summoned. Submit