JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 05.05.2005, passed by learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No. 08 of 2004, whereunder learned District Judge dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellants challenging judgment and decree, dated 30.03.2004, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No. TS 29 of 2001. 2. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:- Whether rejection of the prayer for acceptance of documents filed by the defendants by the learned Trial Court in view of the Amendment Act, 1999 is proper as the suit was instituted prior to amendment. 3. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Gon Chowdhury for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman for the respondents. 4. At the outset, learned counsel Mr. Roy Barman has submitted that the appeal has been admitted before issuing any notice on the respondents and therefore, the respondents had no scope to place their submission in respect of admission of appeal on any substantial question of law and the substantial question of law which has been formulated cannot be accepted as a substantial question of law for deciding a second appeal. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Gon Chowdhury has submitted that the substantial question of law formulated by this Court is the only point of law which the appellants insisted in the memo of appeal and the appellants have no other points to agitate. 6. Kanailal Saha, since deceased, the predecessor of present respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(f) and respondent Nos. 2 to 5, all as plaintiffs (hereinafter mentioned as pltffs.) jointly filed T.S. 29 of 2001 against the present appellants and six other (defendants) in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, South Tripura, Udaipur seeking recovery of possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint with other consequential relief inter alia contending that they were the rightful owner in possession of the suit land and that the defendants were allowed to possess the suit land as permissive possessors and when the plaintiffs demanded the defendants to vacate the suit land, the defendants refused to do so and hence, the title suit has been filed praying for passing a decree directing the defendants to vacate the suit land. 7. 7. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement inter alia contending that they had been possessing the suit land since long exercising their all acts of right, title and interest and their possession has become adverse against the rightful owner. 8. The trial Court formulated 9(nine) issues and in due course after trial, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants preferred first appeal as stated hereinbefore and the appeal was dismissed. 9. Only point raised by the defendant-appellants in this second appeal is that certain documents were filed by the defendants on 19.12.2003 but those were not accepted by the trial Court since those were filed after framing of issues. According to the appellants, the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1999 came into force on 01.07.2002 and the suit was filed in the year 2001. So the provision of the CPC Amendment Act was not applicable in that suit. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Gon Chowdhury has submitted that the defendants filed photocopy of the relevant documents on 08.07.2002 and the original copies were filed on 19.12.2003. Since the suit was instituted in the year 2001, the amended provision of CPC was not applicable in that suit and so the documents filed after framing of issues ought to have been accepted by the trial Court. 11. Learned counsel Mr. Roy Barman has submitted that according to the appellants, as stated in the memorandum of appeal, the amended provision came into force on 01.07.2002. The defendants filed the photocopy of documents on 08.07.2002 i.e. after the CPC Amendment Act came into force. Original copies were filed on 19.12.2003 and admittedly after the issues framed when as per the provisions of CPC, filing of documents were barred. It is also submitted by learned counsel Mr. Roy Barman that those documents are only documents of some electricity bill, weights and measures verification certificate etc. which will in no way decide the right, title and interest of the defendants in the suit land while the defendants were permissive possessor under the plaintiffs. 12. I have considered the submission of learned counsel of both sides. The CPC Amendment Act 1999 came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2002. The defendants filed the documents in question after the CPC Amendment Act came into force. 12. I have considered the submission of learned counsel of both sides. The CPC Amendment Act 1999 came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2002. The defendants filed the documents in question after the CPC Amendment Act came into force. So the suit was liable to be prosecuted and disposed of according to the amended provision from the date the amended provision came into force. The trial Court and the appellate Court do not appear to have committed anything in violation of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Further, as I find the plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of possession based on title. The trial Court and the appellate Court concurrently arrived at a finding that the defendant-appellants were permissive possessor under the plaintiffs. So the electricity bill or weights and measures verification bill cannot prove the right, title and interest of the defendants in the suit land to establish their adverse possession in the suit land. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the appeal and the second appeal accordingly stands dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. 14. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.