Tapan Mukherjee, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that there were discrepancies between ext.T and 'A' filed and in order to meet the discrepancies between ext. 1 and A filed in T.S. No. 72 of 1947 and in order to meet the discrepancies the petitioners filed an application before the learned first appellate Court for production of original case record along with original ext. 1 but the learned first appellate Court rejected the prayer of the petitioners causing prejudice to the petitioners. He further contends that in absence of original ext. 1 the petitioners are not in a way to place this case before the learned first appellate Court and in the interest of justice the said petition should have been allowed. Considered the submissions made. It appears from the impugned order of learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Malda that learned Court below did not accept ext. 1 as there was some over writing in the said document and the appellant thereafter made a similar prayer before the learned Court below and learned Court below called for the case record of T.S. No. 72 of 1947 from D. R. R. Jalpaiguri. The report of the Judge-in- Charge, D. R. R., Jalpaiguri disclosed that the case record of T.S. No. 72 of 1947 remained untraced. Learned Judge has observed that since there is a clear report about the original case No. 72 of 1947. It will abuse of process and time of Court if the prayer of the appellant is allowed at this stage. The appellant could have filed a fresh certified copy of such solenama at the proper stage of proceedings. But the appellant failed to do so and hence the prayer was rejected. Learned lawyer for the petitioners has contended that as the record was not traceable so the appellants could not procure fresh certified copy of such solenama and the question of filling the same before the learned first appellate Court did not arise. The fact remains that the case record of T.S. No. 72 of 1947 remains untraced. When the record is not available as per report of Judge-in-Charge, D. R. R., Jalpaiguir, it may be argued that the question of allowing the prayer for calling for the said record by the learned Additional District Judge 3rd Court, Malda does not arise. But the said original ext. 1 is required and record should be traced out. So the learned first appellate Court should have allowed the said prayer of the petitioners plaintiffs. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Malda is directed to call for the record of T.S. No.72 of 1947 from D. R. R. Jalpaiguri. The District Judge, Jalpaiguri is directed to take all and efforts for tracing out the said case record and to send the same in the 3rd Court of learned Additional District Judge, Malda on the basis of requisition of the said Court. With these observations, the instant application stands disposed of on setting aside the impugned order. Urgent Xerox certified copy be given to the parties on priority basis, if applied for. . ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...;