Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this second appeal the defendant is the appellant and the impugned judgment is a judgment of reversal. 2. By reason of the impugned judgment the learned lower appellate court has set aside the judgment of the trial court whereby and whereunder the said learned Court dismissed the plaintiffs respondents suit. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for partition claiming l/3rd share in the lands described in schedules A and B appended to the piaiat. 3. In view of the order proposed to be passed by me I am not noticing the facts of the case herein as the facts of the case have been taken notice of in details by the learned Courts below. 4. It appers from the judgment of the learned trial court that the sheet-anchor of the plaintiffs case was the entries made in the record of rights which was marked as Ext.1. The learned trial court held that Ext.1 was an interpolated document. The observation of the learned trial court is as follows : "a bare look of the Khatian (Ext.1)goes to show that it is an interpolated document. The words " (2) Nissa wo Mosstt, Akali Jauje kuoda Bux Mian (1) Nissa Sakin Naya Basti" in column no.2 of the khatian of khata No.38 as well as of khata No.99 appear to have been subsequently added in this column. These words are definitely in other ink and the pen used in writing the remaining portion of Ext.1. The aforesaid words are not written by the same person by whom the remaining portions of Ext.1 have been written. Moreover, the aforesaid words appear to have been recently written whereas the remaining writings of Ext.1 appear to be quite old. The interpolations are apparent on the fact of Ext.1. The original Khatian of khata No.38 was called for from the D. V g. and the same has been marked Ext. A in this suit. In the original khatian of Khata No.38, the names of Most. Akali does not find place in column No.2 of the said Khatian. It is, therefore, clear that the aforesaid words in column No.2 of the Khatian marked ext.1 have been subsequently added. I have, therefore, no hesitiation in holding that the continuous Khatian, marked ext.1, is an interpolated document and as such I am not prepared to place any reliance upon this document. " 5. It is, therefore, clear that the aforesaid words in column No.2 of the Khatian marked ext.1 have been subsequently added. I have, therefore, no hesitiation in holding that the continuous Khatian, marked ext.1, is an interpolated document and as such I am not prepared to place any reliance upon this document. " 5. The learned lower appellate court has, however, reversed the aforementioned findings by holding as follows: "from the perusal of the judgment it appears that the learned Sub-Judge has taken upon him the task of hand writing expert in giving finding against the Ext.1. Ext.1 was not sent to any expert for verification and as such in absence of evidence any expert it cannot be said that there is interpolation Ext.1 Correctness of Ext.1 is proved by the respondents document certified copy of consolidated vouchers. Ext. E which shows that defendant Barho Singh possessed only 4.47 acres of land, while the total area of the suit is 7.6 acres. This clearly established that defendant Barho Singh had interest in the suit land to extent of 4.47 acres only and remaining interest was possessed by the plaintiff Akali. The learned Sub-Judge was wrongly held that the defendant Barho Singh was settled with the entire of Khata 99 of Mouza Govindpur and Khata 38 of Likubad. " 6. Apparently the learned lower appellate Court has not met the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court. 7. In the instant case the trial court proceeded to hold that ext.1 is interpolated which appeared to him on the face of the document and in that view of the matter it was not necessary to send it to the handwriting expert. The question as to whether there had been interpolation in a document or not can well be judged by the court while deciding the case. 8. In this view of the matter the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court cannot be sustained- 9. Miss. I Choudhuri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has, however, drawn my attention to the fact that various documents had been taken back from the trial court which they filed to produce before the learned lower appellate court despite notice. This aspect of the matter has also been dealt with by the learned lower court in its judgment in paragraph 12. This aspect of the matter has also been dealt with by the learned lower court in its judgment in paragraph 12. When a party takes back the documents and undertaking is given by him that he would refile the same in the Court as and when called upon to do so. 10. If the appellant had failed to produce the documents before the learned lower appellate court despite notice appropriate action could be taken as against the appellant. The learned lower appellate court was in such circumstances also entitled to proceed to decide the case as if such documents were not filed by the appellant, 11. However, as in the instant case such a course of action had not been taken and further in view of my aforementioned finding that the learned lower appellate court has not met the reasons assigned by the learned trial court in respect of Ext.1, in my opinion, the entire matter should be considered afresh by the learned lower appellate court in accordance with law. 12. The learned lower appellate court shall give an opportunity to the defendant-appellant to produce the documents within a period fixed by him and on the failure of the appellant to refile the said document in his court he shall proceed to consider the appeal as if the said documents were not filed by the appellant at all. 13. With the aforementiond observations this second appeal is allowed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.