Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Today Sri K. L. Samanta, Government pleader, files his memo of appearance in this case on behalf of O.P. /defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and let it be kept with the record.
(2.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order No.62 dated 21.12.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Asansol in Title Suit No.171 of 2000. By the impugned order learned Trial Court allowed the petition dated 07.12.2004 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for admitting certain documents after closure of evidence of D.W.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said order the instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff alleging that plaintiff filed said Title Suit No.171 of 2000 praying for declaration of his title in suit property with a further declaration that R.S. record of right showing the predecessor in interest of defendant Nos. 3 to 8 as having permissive possession in the suit land was erroneous and baseless with a further prayer for permanent injunction against state authority being defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from settling the said land to any person. The respondent /defendant State started to contest the said suit by filing written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia the suit plot was rightly recorded in favour of Gopal Chandra Nandi and others as intermediary under B.H. Roy and that said plot was vested and recorded in R.S. Khatian during R.S. operation and that the noting of R.S. Khatian recording permissive possession of some persons was correct etc.
(3.) It further appears that O.P. / defendant/ State filed a list of documents in the Trial Court in 07.12.2004 together with a petition for receiving those documents and evidence from the side of defendant/State on 21.12.2004. It further appears that in spite of submission of written objection dated 21.12.2004 by petitioner / plaintiff learned Trial Court allowed O.P./ defendant/State to produce those documents by recalling D.W.1. According to learned Court, D.W.1 deposed that the documents were lying in the office and that he would be able to file those documents if time was given, and that in spite of due diligence defendant/State could not produce those documents earlier and that those documents should be permitted to be produced under Order 18 Rule 17 A C. P. C. for proper adjudication of the case. During hearing learned Advocate Mr. Probal Mukherjee for the petitioner / plaintiff has submitted that Order 18 Rule 17 A has since been deleted by Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act of 2002 with effect from 1st July, 2002 and hence learned Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him by law and the impugned order should be set aside by this Court of revision. It was further submitted that said petition of O.P./defendant/State was not also in proper form having no verification even.;