ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There are two orders one dated 9th May, 2005 and other dated 18th May, 2005 (Annexure10 Series) impugned in the present writ application arising out of Title Suit no. 8/98. By order dated 9th May, 2005, the application of the petitioner dated 20th December, 2004 under Order XII Rule 3A C.P.C asking the plaintiff to admit a document being the copy of plaint of Title Suit no. 16/96 has been rejected by learned Trial Court on the grounds that the evidence of the parties have already been closed and the case is at the stage of argument. Earlier, learned Trial Court had permitted production of order-sheet of Title Suit no. 16/96, which was rejected on the grounds of non-prosecution, but had refused to permit the plaint of the suit on the grounds that it was not in the category of a public document as material Exhibit. Plaintiffs' evidence had been concluded on 11th February, 2002 itself and the evidence of defendants had also been concluded when such an application under Order XII Rule 3A C.P.C was moved. 3. By the impugned order dated 18th May, 2005, learned Munsiff has rejected an application under Order VIII Rule 1A( 3)(4), where under the defendant sought to adduce the order-sheet of Case no. 69/80 in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. Defendants contended that during cross-examination of plaintiffs' witness no. 1, Lakhan Uraon, the reference of Case no. 158/77 came from the mouth of plaintiffs' witness. The defendant was not under an obligation to enlist such a document along with its written statement in terms of OrderVIII Rule 1A (4). This plea has been rejected by learned trial court inter alia on the grounds that not only was the evidence of parties closed by that time but the certified copy of Case no. 158/77 said to have been misplaced earlier, could have again been obtained by due diligence on the part of the defendants and adduced during the course of their evidence. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed both the orders inter alia submitting (i) that the plaint of Case no. 158/77 said to have been misplaced earlier, could have again been obtained by due diligence on the part of the defendants and adduced during the course of their evidence. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed both the orders inter alia submitting (i) that the plaint of Case no. 16/96 related to an important pleadings of the plaintiffs, which should have been allowed to be admitted by resorting to the provisions of Order XII Rule 3A even during the course of hearing of the case as learned Trial Court had itself allowed defendants to adduce the order-sheet of Title Suit as Exhibited earlier; (ii) in support of challenge to the impugned order dated 18th May, 2005, he submits that the plaintiffs' witness has during cross-examination categorically denied knowledge of evidence of one Chandrika Prasad, who deposed in the proceedings under Sections 144 and 145 Cr.P.C in Case no. 158/77. This case related to a dispute of possession between plaintiffs and defendants and were indeed necessary to be adduced. The defendant was entitled to seek production of the said document as it could not have been expected to submit it at the time of filing of written statement in terms of provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A (4). 5. Counsel for the State is present. Private respondents have already appeared through Vakalatnama also. 6. Considered the submission of the parties in the light of the materials on record and perused the impugned order. Resort to the provisions of Order XII Rule3A at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiffs as well as defendants had been concluded and the suit was at the stage of hearing with the purported object for admission of a document relating to Title Suit no. 16/96 was not proper on the part of the defendants considering the scheme of the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure. The order-sheet of Title Suit no. 16/96 was permitted to be adduced by the Trial Court at the instance of defendant himself earlier. It was open for the defendant to adduce such a document during the course of his evidence, had it been diligent enough on that score. When the trial had progressed considerably after framing of issues and evidence of parties had also been closed resort to such a provision which essentially is a power of the Court under Order XII Rule 3A was not permissible. When the trial had progressed considerably after framing of issues and evidence of parties had also been closed resort to such a provision which essentially is a power of the Court under Order XII Rule 3A was not permissible. Order XII, Rule3-A is quoted hereunder: “3-A. Power of Court to record admission Notwithstanding that no notice to admit documents has been given under rule 2, the Court may, at any stage of the proceeding before it, of its own motion, call upon any party to admit any document and shall, in such a case, record whether the party admits or refused or neglects to admit such document.” 7. In the background of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the opinion of the learned Trial Court on that account cannot be said to suffer from any transgression of jurisdiction or failing to exercise jurisdiction conferred upon it requiring interference in supervisory jurisdiction of the court. 8. So far as the prayer of defendants to adduce the order-sheet of Case no. 158/77 is concerned, it appears from perusal of deposition of the plaintiffs' witness no. 1, namely, Lakhan Uraon that denial of knowledge of evidence of one Chandrika Prasad in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C being Case no. 158/77 has been made for the first time. The defendants though could have resorted to production of such a document at the stage of their own evidence, but for the reasons indicated on their part being largely on account of ignorance and illiteracy of the parties, such permission could have been granted by learned Trial Court in the interest of justice. 9. By order dated 18th October, 2005, though the Trial court was allowed to go on with hearing of the arguments, but it was restrained from delivering final judgment. The suit as such has remained pending till date. In the fitness of thinks, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court would give a window of opportunity to the defendants/petitioners herein to adduce the deposition of Chandrika Prasad in Case no. 158/77 and the judgment passed in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C being Case no. 69/80 within a period of 3 weeks with opportunity to the plaintiffs to cross-examine the defendants' witness on that score. Learned Trial Court would grant no further time for that purpose to the parties. 158/77 and the judgment passed in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C being Case no. 69/80 within a period of 3 weeks with opportunity to the plaintiffs to cross-examine the defendants' witness on that score. Learned Trial Court would grant no further time for that purpose to the parties. After the aforesaid exercise, learned Trial Court would proceed to decide the suit itself as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated here-in-above.