Short Note : 1. The revision was directed against order dated 3-2-1975 whereby three applications of the defendant applicant, viz. (i) application under Order 14, rule 2, C.P.C. dated 19-10-1974, (ii) application for recall of P.W. 1 Babulal dated 19-10-1974, (iii) application under Order 13, rule 2, C.P.C. to bring certain documents on record stated to be relevant for issue Nos. 8, 9 and 10 had been rejected. Held: So far as the application under Order 14, rule 2 C.P.C. is concerned, it has been rightly rejected. Once the trial of the case commenced the defendant cannot be permitted to put the arms of the clock back and, as such, this Court does not find any ground for interference so far as rejection of that application under Order 14, rule 2, C.P.C. is concerned. AIR 1964 SC 497 relied on. 2. Now taking up the second contention which pertains to recall of P.W.1 Babulal along with the document, suffice to say that the application cannot be called belated inasmuch as it was moved the same day, when P.W.1 Babulal was examined on 19-10-1974. He stated in his cross-examination that certain documents are in his possession Therefore, ends of justice require recalling of the witness along with documents stated to be in his possession by him in his deposition power to call includes power to recall Therefore, the trial Court acted with material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction when it rejected the application. So far as the question of permission to produce documents under Order 13, rule 2, C.P.C is concerned, a copy of one of the documents, the will dated 2-10-1935, was already on record. Therefore, the prayer for production of its certified copy was not of production of any new document. This fact was overlooked by the learned trial Judge. As to the other three documents, leave to produce which was sought, are (i) Wakf deed dated 8-8-1928, (ii) statement of Ganeshilal in case No. 27-A/1952 and (iii) written statement filed by Ganeshilal in this case. In presence of issues No.8, 9 and 10 which were framed vide order dated 26-11-1973 by the trial Court, these documents cannot be held to be irrelevant. In presence of issues No.8, 9 and 10 which were framed vide order dated 26-11-1973 by the trial Court, these documents cannot be held to be irrelevant. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant to the effect that the suit is merely based on the relationship of landlord and tenant and, hence, the question of title cannot be gone into in the present case stands repelled by existence of issue Nos.8, 9 and 10 which pertain to the factum of the suit property being trust property and Kesarbai being beneficiary in the trust. But as it stands today the issue Nos. 8, 9 and 10 being there, the evidence of the defendant cannot be shut out on those issues. The impugned order pertaining to rejection of this application, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 1969 JLJ 227 , relied on. 1976 JLJ SN 11, distinguished. Revision partly allowed.