A. K. CHAKRAVARTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against order dated 23rd March, 1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore in Civil Revision No. 94 of 1993 affirming an order being order No. 134 dated 24. 8. 92 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 438 of 1983. ( 2 ) THE only point for consideration in this revisional application is whether some documents which were produced before the learned trial Judge after the closure of the evidence and before argument should have been accepted and admitted in evidence without there being my reason for non-production of documents at the time when they ought to have been produced before the learned trial Court. ( 3 ) IN the instant case the opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the defendant petitioner tenant and in the said suit the tenant challenged the title of the landlord in the suit premises. The documents sought to be filed were the judgment and decree obtained by the same landlord against the two other tenants holding separate portion of the said building in which the tenancy in question is situated. The documents were filed for the purpose of proving that the opposite party was the landlord and had title and ownership in respect of the said building. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17a of the Civil Procedure Code and contended that such evidence could be admitted at a later stage of the trial with the permission of the Court that the party has exercised due diligence for production of such documents. It was also contended that under this provision any party seeking to produce such evidence should not be allowed to do so the existence of which was within his knowledge when the party was leading his evidence. The learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that his client could not get hold of these documents at the time when they ought to have been produced and he was not advised by his learned Advocate who was conducting the case before the learned court below to produce those documents before the learned lower court in time. The learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that his client could not get hold of these documents at the time when they ought to have been produced and he was not advised by his learned Advocate who was conducting the case before the learned court below to produce those documents before the learned lower court in time. Since the petitioner is not likely to be prejudiced if the documents are admitted in evidence at this stage and since it appears that the documents could not be produced in due time due to laches and negligence on the part of the learned advocate for the opposite party who was conducting the case before the learned court below, I believe that sufficient explanation has been given which prevented the opposite party to produce the documents at the time when that party was leading evidence before the learned trial Court. ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid view of the matter I find no reason for interference with the order passed by the learned court of appeal below. ( 6 ) THE Revisional application accordingly fails and is dismissed. But while disposing of this revisional application it is directed that the learned court below should also give an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to challenge these documents by recalling any witness or by adducing fresh evidence in the matter, if he so desires. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. Let xerox copies of this order be made available to the learned Advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. Application rejected.