CRP 379/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.105/2006 has challenged th e order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Nagaon in th e said suit refusing to allow the petitioner to led secondary evidence to prove the partition deed. The learned Munsiff by order dated 10th August, 2011 for the reasons recorded th erein has refused to prove the partition deed by adducing secondary evidence. Sub-Section (1) of Section 105 has provided that save as otherwise expressly pro vided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction; but, where a decree is appealed from, any e rror, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, m ay be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. The grounds on which, the petitioner’s prayer for adducing secondary evidence ha s been rejected by the impugned order dated 10th August, 2011 can well be set up as a ground in the appeal, if the plaintiff/petitioner is required to file an a ppeal against the ultimate decree that may be passed. That being the position, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Ar ticle 227 of the Constitution of India and hence the revision petition is dispos ed of with the aforesaid observation. No costs.