ORDER : Harish Tandon, J. This revisional application is directed against the order no. 152 dated 15th November, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No. 53 of 2002, by which an application for recalling the plaintiffs' first witness is rejected. 2. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration of their title with further declaration that the purported deed executed by the defendants treating the property as secular is void and not legal and binding upon the plaintiffs and permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. 3. It is alleged that the property was dedicated to the Deity on the basis of Arpannama executed by the admitted owner. It is alleged that the defendants are intermingling the said property and have sold a portion thereof treating the same as secular. 4. In the written statement the defendants denied the allegations made in the said plaint and assert that they were the owner of the suit-property and have divested their right, title and interest in favour of a third party. 5. The dispute as it appears hinges on the rival titles of the property claimed in the said suit. Though the first witness was examined and cross-examined in full, but after the discharge an application for reexamination of the said witness is taken out for proving two documents pertaining to the record of rights to throw light on the title of the plaintiffs. 6. The Trial Court rejected the said application, as those documents have no nexus or relation to the issues involved therein. It is though observed that after deletion of the provisions under Order 18, Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure the party cannot be allowed to tender further documents in evidence upon recalling the witness, but the second observation made by the Trial Court is not legally sustainable, as the Court can allow the party to tender documents in evidence after recalling the witness in exercise of inherent power, even when by a subsequent amendment the provisions relating to Order 18, Rule 17A of the Code is deleted. 7. The party cannot be allowed to recall the witness for re-examination or re-cross-examination in a routine and mechanical manner. 7. The party cannot be allowed to recall the witness for re-examination or re-cross-examination in a routine and mechanical manner. If the intention of the party is to prolong or drag the proceeding and the grounds on which such recall is sought have no bearing on the issues involved therein, the Court shall reject the said application. 8. In the instant suit the declaration relates to title having claimed by both the parties. It admits no ambiguity to say that the record of right maintained by the authority neither creates the title nor extinguishes the same. The said record of right cannot throw light on the title of the respective parties, which are to be decided on the strength of the documents in relation thereto. 9. This Court, therefore, does not find that the Trial Court has committed any error in rejecting the said application. 10. The revisional application fails. 11. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.