JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is the substituted plaintiff in T.S.64 of 1969 (since renumbered T.S.129 of 1971, again renumbered T.S. 107 of 1999), pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia. He is aggrieved because by order no.299 dated 16th March, 2011, an application filed by him under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, seeking production of the original notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code that was purportedly served on the defendant/State, was rejected. 2. The suit is one for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff averred that notice under Section 80 of the Code was served on the State of West Bengal represented by the Collector, Nadia on 9th December, 1968 and that the copy of the said notice along with acknowledgement card and postal receipt are being filed. 3. The suit is being contested by the State, being the defendant no.1, by filing a written statement. In paragraph 3 of the written statement it was stated as follows:- “That the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That in case if there be any notice, the name of this Defendant has not been properly and legally mentioned.” However, the contents of paragraph 7 of the plaint were not controverted by the State. 4. It appears that the petitioner had the occasion to move a writ petition before this Court, registered as C.R. No.7831(W) of 1975. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner had averred that notice under Section 80 of the Code was served on the State and it was received on 9th December, 1968 whereafter the instant suit, out of which the impugned order arises, was instituted. The writ petition was contested by the State by filing affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by one Sri Sarasi Ranjan Tagore, the Special Revenue Officer, Grade-II attached to Nadia Collectorate. Paragraph 10 of the writ petition was dealt with in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition. It was stated that the contents thereof are all matters of record and no further comment was offered. The writ petition was contested by the State by filing affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by one Sri Sarasi Ranjan Tagore, the Special Revenue Officer, Grade-II attached to Nadia Collectorate. Paragraph 10 of the writ petition was dealt with in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition. It was stated that the contents thereof are all matters of record and no further comment was offered. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 25th February, 1979 with a direction upon the trial Court to consider the instant suit and to determine the same after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in Ramkrishna Mallick –Vs- State of West Bengal, reported in 1975 CLJ page 154. 5. In due course of time trial commenced and the evidence of P.W.1 was being recorded when the petitioner filed the application under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, referred to above. The defendant/State, by filing a petition on 25th January, 2011 before the trial Court, prayed that the evidence of P.W.1, both in-chief and cross, be completed and thereafter the petition under Section 66 of the Evidence Act may be entertained for the ends of justice, otherwise legal complication may arise. 6. When the application of the petitioner was taken for consideration by the learned Judge, the counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/State before the trial Court urged that no notice under Section 80 of the Code had been served and, therefore, no direction could be issued upon a party who denies receipt of the same, as per provisions of Section 66 of the Evidence Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel was accepted by the trial Court leading to rejection of the petition by the order dated 16th March, 2011, as noted above. 7. Mr. Biswarup Biswas, learned advocate, appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner has contended that having regard to the absence of specific denial of the contents of paragraph 7 of the plaint by the defendant/State in its written statement, the trial Court committed gross error of jurisdiction in rejecting the application by placing complete reliance on the statement made by its learned counsel. He referred to Order 8 Rules 3 to 5 of the Code to contend that the denial that was offered by the defendant/State as extracted (supra) was evasive and, therefore, not worthy of credence. He referred to Order 8 Rules 3 to 5 of the Code to contend that the denial that was offered by the defendant/State as extracted (supra) was evasive and, therefore, not worthy of credence. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Badat & Co., Bombay –Vs- East India Trading Co., reported in AIR 1964 SC 538 and the Bench decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Singhania –Vs- Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd., reported in 2005(2) CHN 601 in support of the proposition that if a statement of material fact in the plaint is not controverted, the Court ought to proceed on the premise that the material fact stated in the plaint is admitted by the defendant. He accordingly prayed for a direction of the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law and to direct the defendant/State to produce the original copy of the notice under Section 80 of the Code. 8. The application has been opposed by Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the defendant/State. She refers to paragraph 13 of the instant application wherein the petitioner himself has alleged that the copy of the notice under Section 18 of the Code together with the acknowledgement card and postal receipt, marked “X” for identification may have been lost from the Court’s records as the suit is pending for long. 9. It is also urged that the notice under Section 80 of the Code, stated to have been served on the defendant/State by the petitioner, is not available in the records maintained by it and, therefore, question of production of the same before the trial Court does not and cannot arise. 10. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and have given my anxious consideration to the issue that has been raised in this application. 11. In Badat & Co. (supra), the Supreme Court on consideration of Rules 3 to 5 of Order 8 of the Code ruled as follows :- “These three rules form an integrated code dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its non-compliance. The written-statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. The written-statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. If his denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.” 12. Considering the nature of objection raised by the defendant/State in the written statement, it is obvious that in paragraph 3 thereof it put up an evasive denial regarding receipt of notice while contending that the suit was not maintainable. However, paragraph 7 of the plaint was not dealt with at all. In the additional written statement that was filed on behalf of the defendant/State sometime in August, 1991, although it was pleaded that the suit is bad for non-service of notice under Section 80 of the Code, paragraph 7 of the plaint was again not specifically dealt with. The aforesaid pleadings of the defendant/State have to be considered in the light of the pleadings in the affidavit-in-opposition which was filed while controverting the contents of the writ petition wherein the deponent admitted that the contents of paragraph 10 were matters of record. The statement in paragraph 2 of the additional written statement cannot be given primacy over the original written statement that was filed by the defendant/State immediately after institution of the suit, where an indication is there that the notice may not have been sent in the proper name of the defendant/State which supports the plea of the plaintiff that the notice was actually served. 13. In my considered view, all these pleadings do not appear to have been properly examined by the trial Court in the proper perspective while rejecting the petition under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant/State from the Bar also ought not to have been allowed to prevail over whatever were stated by the defendant/State in the pleadings filed in connection with the pending litigation and also the records of the suit. There is no reference in the order impugned to the fact that the trial Court had the occasion to look into the records of the suit and thereafter was satisfied that no notice under Section 80 of the Code was actually served on the defendant/State. There is no reference in the order impugned to the fact that the trial Court had the occasion to look into the records of the suit and thereafter was satisfied that no notice under Section 80 of the Code was actually served on the defendant/State. 14. In view thereof, the conclusion is inescapable that the order impugned cannot sustain in the eye of law for want of consideration of all the relevant factors. The same stands set aside. The revisional application is allowed. 15. The trial Court is requested to examine the issue raised by the plaintiff/petitioner in the correct perspective and taking into consideration the pleadings referred to above. A decision shall be given as early as possible but not later than four weeks from date of receipt of this order. The trial Court shall also expedite its decision on the suit. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties as early as possible.