JUDGMENT Respondent No.1 in Title Appeal No.26 of 1992 pending in the file of 1st Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar has filed this writ petition challenging to the order passed on 12.08.2003. 2. Brief sketch of the background fact would indicate that petitioner as plaintiff in O.S. No.311 of 1980-1 seeking the relief of declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants. Petitioner has stated that his claim of title and possession is against the State Government represented by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. As per the judgment dated 4.2.1992 and decree dated 23.3.1992 of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar, plain¬tiff's suit was decreed. The appellant, projecting himself as defendant No.3 in that suit, filed Title Appeal No.26 of 1992. According to the petitioner, appellant is not that defendant No.3 and therefore, he is not entitled to maintain the appeal. Appli¬cation filed to that effect was rejected by the appellate Court on 5.7.2002. Petitioner challenged that order in Civil Revision No. 110 of 2002. On 7.4.2003 that Civil Revision was disposed of with the following observation: “Be that as it may, while dismissing the Civil Revision, it is observed that if at the time of hearing of the appeal any contention shall be raised that appellant is not defendant No.3 or any party to the suit and if the respondent No.1 shall be able to produce proper person, i.e., the real defendant No.3, then the Court below shall consider that aspect in accordance with law including the criminal law notwithstanding the impugned order and to decide the same along with the appeal.” 3. Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 filed application in the Court below with the prayer to direct the appellant to produce certain documents in support of his (appellant’s) identity that he is Mohanlal Gupta. After considering that petition, learned Addl. District Judge has rejected the same on the ground that as per the above quoted directions, the matter shall be taken into consideration at the time of hearing and there is no reason to ask the appellant to produce any document. 4. After considering that petition, learned Addl. District Judge has rejected the same on the ground that as per the above quoted directions, the matter shall be taken into consideration at the time of hearing and there is no reason to ask the appellant to produce any document. 4. Referring to and relying on provision in Order 41, Rule 27(b), C.P.C. together with Order 41, Rules 22 and 33, C.P.C. and citations thereon, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner’s prayer to issue direction to the appellant to cause production of document should not have been rejected notwith¬standing the above quoted order of this Court in Civil Revision No.110 of 2002. Learned counsel for the appellant-opp.party No. 1 supports the impugned order and states that the aforesaid Rules from Order 41, C.P.C. have no applicability to the present situa¬tion. 5. Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. provides for eligibility of a respondent not only to file a cross-objection but also to oppose to any findings recorded by the trial Court even without prefer¬ring an appeal. Rule 33 is the procedure provided at the juncture of judgment in appeal. Therefore, petitioner is totally miscon¬ceived in invoking those statutory provisions to the above noted facts and sequence. 6. Rule 27 of Order 41 and particularly, Rule 27 (b) empowers the appellate Court to direct the parties to produce documents or witnesses to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Petitioner puts emphasis on “any other substantial cause” as the enabling provi¬sion to entertain petitioner’s application for issue of direction to the appellant to produce documents. The above quoted order from Civil Revision No. 110 of 2002 goes to show that it is the petitioner-respondent No. 1 , who is disputing the identity of the appellant and he is claiming that the present person has impersonated defendant No.3. Therefore, according to the observa¬tion made in the above quoted passage, petitioner was directed to produce the right person before the Court or else to satisfy the Court about whereabouts with certainty of that defendant No.3 in support of the allegation of impersonation by the present appel¬lant. Without doing that, the method adopted by the petitioner in asking the appellant to prove his identity was appropriately considered and rejected by the Court below. Without doing that, the method adopted by the petitioner in asking the appellant to prove his identity was appropriately considered and rejected by the Court below. Since there is no illegality in that order nor it has caused prejudice to the cause of justice, therefore, the writ petition is without any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs.1 ,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the appellant within a period of two months and receipt be filed in the appellate Court, failing which the said amount shall be accounted for in the decree in accordance with rules. Petition dismissed with cost.