JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. 1. By way of present civil miscellaneous petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 21st August, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in Probate T.S. No.03 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner/defendants dated 2nd May, 2023 and 9th May, 2024 (not mentioned in the order dated 21st August, 2024 seeking leave of the Court to accept the medical certificate/prescription of Late Arun Kumar Banerjee (Testator) and the signature of Arun Kumar Banerjee appended in the marriage certificate of the petitioner—Mouli Banerjee was rejected as there was no sufficient ground for entertaining the petition and the petitioner was further directed to produce the remaining witnesses by the next three consecutive dates without fail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that probate proceeding was initiated on behalf of the Opposite Party on the basis of the Will executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the Opposite Party Gita Devi. That probate proceeding was registered as Probate Case No.04 of 2016 which was later on converted into Probate Title Suit No.03 of 2017. In that suit, the written statement was also filed on behalf of the petitioner which is Annexure No.4 of this civil miscellaneous petition. It is further submitted that on behalf of the petitioner at the stage of evidence, an application was moved to take the marriage certificate and prescription pertaining to the illness of his father, who is alleged to have executed Will in favour of the O.P. No.1 Gita Devi, who has claimed herself to be caretaker of him and these two documents were refused to be taken on record by the learned trial court on the sole ground of delay. The issue has been framed and the evidence of the plaintiff has been concluded and the evidence of the defendants has commenced. In view of the above contended that the impugned order is based on perverse finding and same deserved to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that these two documents were very much in knowledge of the petitioner and after framing issues and conclusion of the evidence, the same should have not be taken on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that these two documents were very much in knowledge of the petitioner and after framing issues and conclusion of the evidence, the same should have not be taken on record. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the application and needs no interference by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. The petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act was filed on behalf of the Gita Devi against Mouli Banerjee and Ruprekha Banerjee which was registered as Probate Case No.04 of 2016 and same was converted into Probate Title Suit No.03 of 2017. The very copy of said title suit is Annexure-1 of this civil miscellaneous petition. In this petition, it has been averred that Arun Kumar Banerjee has only one daughter, namely, Mouli Banerjee, who had married and had been living in her in-law’s house having no concern with her father. The mother of Arun Kumar Banerjee, due to old age and ailment, always remained bed ridden and, as such, Arun Kumar Banerjee kept Gita Devi to provide proper service to his old mother and also for domestic work and Gita Devi provided special care and services to his mother and also did domestic work. The mother of Arun Kumar Banerjee died on 9th June, 2012 and his daughter did not come to attend the last rites of the mother. Gita Devi continued to offer her service to Arun Kumar Banerjee and his wife, namely, Ruprekha Banerjee. Being satisfied with the services provided by Gita Devi, he executed a Will in favour of the O.P. No.1—Gita Devi on 25th August, 2015. The details of the property is given in Schedule ‘A’ of this very title suit. With this suit, the copy of the Will which was notarized is also made Annexure-2 of this civil miscellaneous petition. Annexure-3 is preliminary objection filed on behalf of the Mouli Banerjee (petitioner herein) against the probate petition and Annexure-4 is the written statement filed on behalf of Mouli Banerjee. With this suit, the copy of the Will which was notarized is also made Annexure-2 of this civil miscellaneous petition. Annexure-3 is preliminary objection filed on behalf of the Mouli Banerjee (petitioner herein) against the probate petition and Annexure-4 is the written statement filed on behalf of Mouli Banerjee. In written statement Mouli Banerjee has specifically denied the execution of alleged Will challenging the same on the ground to be fake and his father was not in a fit state of mind to execute the alleged Will. The said Will was forged and at that time he was also suffering from the ailment. 6. In Probate Title Suit No.03 of 2017, the issues were framed by the learned trial court and, thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff also concluded and the suit was at the stage of evidence of defendants. An application was moved on behalf of Mouli Banerjee to take the marriage certificate which bears the signature of his father and also the prescription pertaining to the ailments of her father on record. Against this application, the objections were filed on behalf of the plaintiff—Gita Devi which is Annexure No.6 of this civil miscellaneous petition. 7. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned order which is based on the ground that the case is at the stage of defence. There is no cogent reason to take these documents on record at the belated stage. 8. It is the settled law that the documentary evidence should be produced prior to framing of the issues. Though in CPC under Order XVIII Rule 17(a), the provision has been deleted to adduce the evidence on later stage, yet the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION TAMIL NADU VS UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 has held that even after deletion of provision of Order XVIII Rule 17(a) CPC, the documentary evidence can be taken on record at the later stage of suit on the cogent cause being shown or if the document which is sought to be adduced is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. The paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under : “14. The paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under : “14. In Salem Advocates Bar Association's case, it has been clarified that on deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A which provided for leading of additional evidence, the law existing before the introduction of the amendment, i.e. 1st July, 2002, would stand restored. The Rule was deleted by Amendment Act of 2002. Even before insertion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A, the Court had inbuilt power to permit parties to produce evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence. Order XVIII Rule 17-A did not create any new right but only clarified the position. Therefore, deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A does not disentitle production of evidence at a later stage. On a party satisfying the Court that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just.” 8.1 In view of this settled law this very application which has been rejected by the learned trial court on the sole ground of delay is based on perverse finding, since, the very Will which has been executed by the Testator, who is father, showing that caretaker Gita Devi had served him well. The petitioner wants to take on record the marriage certificate and the marriage was registered under Special Marriage Act and in that marriage also the father of the petitioner was very much witness. Further during period in which the said Will is alleged to have been executed and which is notarized, only the Testator was ill and in order to prove that the father of the petitioner was not in fit state of mind to execute any Will the very prescription of the ailments are also sought to be produced, as such, both documents are found necessary and same should have been taken on record by the learned trial court. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21st August, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in Probate T.S. No.03 of 2017 bears infirmity and same needs interference. 10. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is, hereby, allowed and aforesaid impugned order is set aside. 11. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21st August, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in Probate T.S. No.03 of 2017 bears infirmity and same needs interference. 10. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is, hereby, allowed and aforesaid impugned order is set aside. 11. The application of the petitioner for producing the documents is taken on record. 12. Herein, it is made clear that while proving those documents by any witness of the defendant, the plaintiff would be given opportunity of cross-examination and the plaintiff may also file documentary evidence to controvert these documents and also to re-examine and witness, if he needs. 13. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.