Judgment : This revisional application arose out of an Order No. 150 dated 08.02.2006 passed by Sri Asit Kumar Dey -II, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 17 of 2000 for declaration and permanent injunction of the suit property belonging to one Khepibala Biswas which she inherited from her mother Ambalika Biswas, wife of late Fatik Biswas. During her life time she also purchased some properties. Fatik Biswas died leaving behind his wife and one daughter Khepibala. The said Khepibala died without any issue. The plaintiffs are the son and daughters of Fatik Biswas's brother the paternal uncle's son and daughters and as such under the Hindu Succession Act they inherited the suit properties. The plaintiffs have been possessing the suit properties by paying rent to the State of West Bengal. The said Khepibala was looked after by the plaintiff No.1, his wife and sons during her life time till death in the year, 1999. The plaintiff No.1 and his sons have been cultivating the suit property. After the death of the said Khepibala ritual ceremonies were performed by one Sunil Kumar Biswas, one of the sons of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 also inherited 2/3rd share of the property left by Khepibala. 2. The defendant No.7, Haran Chandra Biswas, son of Khepibala's deceased husband's brother's son, on 15.01.2000, tried to enter into the suit property claiming himself as the owner of the suit property and also declared that he has sold some of suit properties to the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The defendant Nos. 1 and 4 to 6 appeared in the said suit and filed their joint written statement. The defendant No. 7 neither entered appearance nor filed any written statement in the said suit. 3. The defendants/opposite parties filed two applications dated 7th June, 2005 and 14th July, 2005 with a prayer for calling of some witnesses like Prodhan Raghunathpur Gram Panchayet, Block Secretary Inspector, Registrar birth and death to prove the alleged certified copies of the sale deed dated 08.06.1999 filed by the defendants alleged to have been made by Khepibala in favour of the petitioner No.1. Accordingly, some of them have adduced evidence in the said suit. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) called for book volume from the concerned office. Accordingly, some of them have adduced evidence in the said suit. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) called for book volume from the concerned office. The petitioners raised objection stating in the written objection that the petitioners being the paternal uncle's son and daughters of Fatik Biswas, the father of Khepibala, inherited the suit properties as per Hindu Succession Act and they have good title and possession over the suit propoerties. The petitioners emphatically denied that the petitioner No.1 has created a forged deed in his favour in respect of the portion of the suit properties. The opposite parties did not mention the particulars of alleged deeds either in their written statement or in examination in chief of D.W.1. The opposite party No.1 and 4 to 6 also filed their reply dated 17th January, 2006 against the petitioners' written objection thereby disputing the objection read by the petitioners. 5. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court at Krishnagar, Nadla, by his order dated 08.02.2006, rejected the objection of the petitioners holding inter alia that copies be marked and proved by the defendants by bringing the relevant book volume from the concerned sub registry office in view of the judgement reported In AIR 2001 S.C. 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr.) The Judgement was not referred to by the parties. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) by rejecting the written objection of the petitioners without taking into account the fact that at no point of time the original deeds were produced and there was no foundation laid for establishment of right to give secondary evidence as there is no existence of orginal, documents, turned the impugned order. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any impropriety and illegality. 7. It was contended by the learned lawyer for Petitioners that no secondary evidence can be given because the matter concerning the so-called secondary evidence was neither mentioned in the written statement nor in the evidence given by the opposite parties. No foundation for secondary evidence was laid by the other side. In support of his contention learned lawyer for the petitioners cited before me the judgment as reported in AIR 2011 SC 1492 . 8. No foundation for secondary evidence was laid by the other side. In support of his contention learned lawyer for the petitioners cited before me the judgment as reported in AIR 2011 SC 1492 . 8. On the other hand, it was contended by the defendants/opposite parties that the plaintiff's case was totally false and that would be exposed by the deeds standing in their names and as such intentionally they have suppressed that. It was contended by them that the defendants are not the custodian of those deeds and as such certified copies were filed and sought to be proved. The plaintiffs having fear of consequences, attempted illegally to obstruct. It was also contended by them that there is no law to mention in the pleadings the details of the deeds which are very much known to the plaintiffs. However, if the plaintiffs wanted, they could file interrogating the details from the defendants. It was further contended that it was meaningless to say that the defendants did not mention the particulars of the deeds in the written statement or in examination in chief of D.W. 1. So, the certified copies were very much necessary and as such volumes were called. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned advocates of the contesting parties and perused the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. The decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 1492 (supra) shows that: "In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor, any factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the Court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence........." 10. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned lawyer for the petitioners banking upon the said decision, for reasons recorded herein. The original deeds are stated to be in the custody of the plaintiffs and not in the custody of the defendants. For this reason the defendants attempted to adduce the secondary evidence by calling upon the officers from the Registration Department. This decision cited by the petitioners does not appear to be helping them. 11. On the other hand, the decision as reported in AIR 2001 SC 1152 cited by the learned lawyer for the opposite parties appears to be applicable in this case. This decision cited by the petitioners does not appear to be helping them. 11. On the other hand, the decision as reported in AIR 2001 SC 1152 cited by the learned lawyer for the opposite parties appears to be applicable in this case. If the so-called deeds are allowed to be marked exhibit even by putting objection I do not find that there will cause any prejudice to the petitioners. All cards should be placed before the Court. Whether the opposite parties took such plea in earlier stage or not, is not of serious consequences. Each case has to be decided on its own depth and significance. 12. Therefore, considering the pros and cons of the matter, I am of the view that the present revisional application has legs to stand upon. 13. Accordingly, the civil revisional application fails and the impugned Order No. 150 dated 08.02.2006 stands affirmed. 14. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order be supplied to the applicants.