Judgment :- (1.) In spite of service none appears on behalf of the opposite party at the time when this application is taken up for hearing. Affidavit-of-service which is filed today be kept with the record. (2.) The propriety of two orders is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner. (3.) By an order dated 8th December, 2008, the plaintiffs prayer for filing a supplementary affidavit for disclosure of further evidence-in-chief was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. (4.) By the subsequent order dated 7th January, 2009 the plaintiffs prayer for recall of his witness for giving further evidence was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by holding that since there is no scope for proving and adducing evidence after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, such permission cannot be granted. (5.) The propriety of both the aforesaid orders is under challenge in this application. (6.) Heard Mr. Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. (7.) Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. (8.) The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/opposite party under the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The defendant/opposite party neither has entered appearance in the said suit nor has taken any step to contest the same by filing written statement therein. Under these Circumstances, the suit was placed for ex parte hearing. The plaintiff has already submitted his affidavit for disclosing his evidence-in-chief. Certain documents which were relied upon by the plaintiff in his evidence-in-chief were exhibited in the said suit. (9.) Subsequently, it was discovered that the rent receipt, which is a vital piece of evidence for establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, were neither referred to in his evidence in chief nor produced along with the said affidavit. Accordingly, the plaintiff wanted to file a supplementary affidavit for disclosure of further evidence in chief, i.e., more precisely for the purpose of disclosing the said rent receipt. The plaintiff also filed an application for recall of his witness for the purpose of proving the said rent receipt. Accordingly, the plaintiff wanted to file a supplementary affidavit for disclosure of further evidence in chief, i.e., more precisely for the purpose of disclosing the said rent receipt. The plaintiff also filed an application for recall of his witness for the purpose of proving the said rent receipt. The learned Trial Judge rejected the petitioners both the prayers under the impression that there is no scope for proving any document and/or adducing any further evidence either by filing a supplementary affidavit or by recalling his witness, after amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact a similar question came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India, reported in 2005(6) SCC 344 , wherein it was held as follows : "Additional evidence 13. In Salem Advocate Bar Assn. Case it has been clarified that on deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A which provided for leading of additional evidence, the law existing before the introduction of the amendment i.e. 1.7.2002, would stand restored. The Rule was deleted by Amendment Act of 2002. Even before insertion of Order 18 Rule 17A the Court had in built power to permit parties to produce evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence. Order 18 Rule 17A did not create any new right but only clarified the position. Therefore, deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A does not disentitle production of evidence at a later stage. On a party satisfying the Court that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just." (10.) In view of the aforesaid decision of the Honble Supreme Court, this Court cannot support the impugned order. The reasons for which the said documents could not be produced by the petitioner has also been explained by the petitioner in his said application. (11.) Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason either to disallow the petitioners prayer for filing a supplementary affidavit for disclosure of further evidence in the suit or for refusing the petitioners prayer for recall of his witness for the purpose of proving those rent receipts. (11.) Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason either to disallow the petitioners prayer for filing a supplementary affidavit for disclosure of further evidence in the suit or for refusing the petitioners prayer for recall of his witness for the purpose of proving those rent receipts. (12.) Accordingly, the impugned orders stand set aside. Supplementary Affidavit-in-Chief which was filed by the petitioner in the Court below is accepted. The petitioner is permitted to recall his witness for the purpose of proving the rent receipts which were referred to in his supplementary affidavit. (13.) The revisional application, thus, stands allowed. (14.) Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for the petitioner as early as possible. Appeal allowed.