Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which came to be registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 397 of 2025. The revisional court, by order dated 20.11.2025, dismissed the revision holding that the impugned order did not amount to a "case decided" and, therefore, was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. Before this Court, counsel for the petitioner initially assailed the impugned orders contending that permitting summoning of documents at the stage of final arguments amounted to allowing the plaintiff to fill up lacunae in the case and defeated a valuable right which had accrued in favour of the defendant. However, after making submissions to some extent, learned counsel could not seriously dispute that the order passed by the Trial Court summoning the documents on the ground of a bona fide mistake could not be said to be perverse or wholly unjustified, inasmuch as it was passed in furtherance of the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent–plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted that the omission in filing the correct set of documents at the time of institution of the suit was wholly inadvertent and was a direct consequence of the simultaneous filing of multiple eviction suits against different tenants on the same date. It was urged that the documents sought to be summoned were not new documents being introduced for the first time in the proceedings, but were already part of the judicial record of a connected SCC suit and constituted the foundational documents of the plaintiff's case. It was further submitted that no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the defendant, particularly in view of the liberty granted by the Trial Court to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to address arguments on the basis of the said documents. The principal grievance of the petitioner which survives for consideration is that by a subsequent order dated 20.01.2026, the Trial Court has fixed the matter for arguments/orders without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses and to advance submissions in the light of the additional documents brought on record. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is intended to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority, exercise jurisdiction vested in them in accordance with law, and adhere to the principles of natural justice. Though this Court does not sit as a court of appeal over interlocutory or procedural orders, it is obliged to intervene where a procedural irregularity results in denial of a fair opportunity to a party. Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure places a procedural embargo on the reception in evidence of documents which were required to be produced or listed at the time of presentation of the plaint but were not so produced. A code of procedure is a body of law designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, and should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The laws of procedure are grounded on the principles of natural justice, which require that a person should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind the back of a party, and that proceedings affecting life or property should not continue without affording an effective opportunity of participation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which came to be registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 397 of 2025. The revisional court, by order dated 20.11.2025, dismissed the revision holding that the impugned order did not amount to a "case decided" and, therefore, was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. Before this Court, counsel for the petitioner initially assailed the impugned orders contending that permitting summoning of documents at the stage of final arguments amounted to allowing the plaintiff to fill up lacunae in the case and defeated a valuable right which had accrued in favour of the defendant. However, after making submissions to some extent, learned counsel could not seriously dispute that the order passed by the Trial Court summoning the documents on the ground of a bona fide mistake could not be said to be perverse or wholly unjustified, inasmuch as it was passed in furtherance of the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent–plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted that the omission in filing the correct set of documents at the time of institution of the suit was wholly inadvertent and was a direct consequence of the simultaneous filing of multiple eviction suits against different tenants on the same date. It was urged that the documents sought to be summoned were not new documents being introduced for the first time in the proceedings, but were already part of the judicial record of a connected SCC suit and constituted the foundational documents of the plaintiff's case. It was further submitted that no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the defendant, particularly in view of the liberty granted by the Trial Court to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to address arguments on the basis of the said documents. The principal grievance of the petitioner which survives for consideration is that by a subsequent order dated 20.01.2026, the Trial Court has fixed the matter for arguments/orders without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses and to advance submissions in the light of the additional documents brought on record. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is intended to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority, exercise jurisdiction vested in them in accordance with law, and adhere to the principles of natural justice. Though this Court does not sit as a court of appeal over interlocutory or procedural orders, it is obliged to intervene where a procedural irregularity results in denial of a fair opportunity to a party. Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure places a procedural embargo on the reception in evidence of documents which were required to be produced or listed at the time of presentation of the plaint but were not so produced. A code of procedure is a body of law designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, and should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The laws of procedure are grounded on the principles of natural justice, which require that a person should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind the back of a party, and that proceedings affecting life or property should not continue without affording an effective opportunity of participation. Submit