ORDER: This Rule raises a short point for determination. The opposite Parties brought a suit for ejectment of the petitioner, being ejectment suit no 737 of 1983, in the 4th Bench of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta In their plaint, the opposite parties referred to quite a number of documents, and the petitioner moved an application before the learned Judge under Order 11, rule 15, Civil Procedure Code for directing the opposite parties to give inspection of those documents on such date and at such hour as might be fixed by the learned Judge. 2. The application came up for hearing un 21.2.84, but the opposite parties did not appear to contest the application The learned Judge, however, by his order no. 10 dated 21.2.84, rejected the application relying upon a decision of this court in Chandmull Goneshmull v. Dhanraj Ganapatroy reported in AIR 1920 Calcutta 416. 3. I must observe at the very outset that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is not at all a speaking order. The learned Judge has not even stated what has been decided in the abovementioned case However on a reading of the decision I find that a defendant is not entitled as of right to inspection of documents referred to in the plaint That does not mean that a defendant cannot have inspection of documents referred to in the plaint under any circumstance even if he can satisfy the court that such inspection is necessary for a proper and effective defence. 4. In this connection, I may refer to a subsequent Division Bench decision of this court in Amar Narh Ash & ors v. Mahadeo Saraf reported in 1978(2) CLJ 125 where the view has been taken that under the provisions of order 11, rule 15 Civil Procedure Code, a defendant is entitled to ask for production of documents referred to in the plaint at any time that is even, before tiling or written statement by him This decision, therefore, overrules the single Bench decision quoted earlier and relied upon by the learned Judge. 5. Mr. Banerjee, opposing the Rule, has urged before me that for inspection of documents the petitioner was required to give notice in form no. 5. Mr. Banerjee, opposing the Rule, has urged before me that for inspection of documents the petitioner was required to give notice in form no. 7 or Appendix C. He has also urged that inspection or the documents referred to in the plaint is not at all necessary to enable the petitioner to defend the suit. 6. As the impugned order rests on the single, Bench decision which has been practically overruled by the subsequent Division Bench decision, it cannot be sustained and must be set aside. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Judge to hear the petition afresh and dispose it of in accordance with law after considering the rival contentions of the parties. The opposite parties are given the liberty to file written objection, if any against the petition under Order 11, rule 15 Civil Procedure Code. The points urged by Mr. Banerjee arc left open and may be agitated before the learned Judge at the time of hearing of the petition. With the above observations, I dispose of the Rule. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down immediately. Order set aside; direction given.