Short Note : 1. It was a revision petition filed by the plaintiff against order dated 4-1-1978 whereby plaintiff's application for summoning of the record of civil suit No. 37-A of 1977 wherein the original documents viz, plans and estimates for reconstruction of the suit house were submitted and whereby plaintiff's application under section 151 (though in substance it was under Order 13, rule 2 C. P. C.) seeking leave to produce copies of estimate dated 7-3-1973 and certified copy of the Municipal permission regarding construction dated 24-6-1974 along with future plan had been rejected. Held: The trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to submit the plans and estimates on record, there being no point of time fixed by the Act. The trial Court does not appear to have taken notice of this position of the law. This apart, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are designed to faciliate justice and further its ends. It is not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties, not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Gangaram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another, AIR 1955 SC 425 , Ram Prakash v. Kapoarchand, JLJ-SN 64 relied on. 2. The provisions of Order 13, rule 2 as well as of Order 13, rule 10 C.P.C. are to be construed as to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. No doubt, in the plaint para No.5 it is stated that estimates and plans are ready with the plaintiff, and no doubt be failed to produce them before the date of settlement. This failure of the plaintiff cannot be visited with the penalty of the kind imposed on him by the impugned order. Had the learned trial judge cared to note even the facts which are clear from a bare perusal of the certified copy of the Municipal permission and the future plan submitted along with the application, it would have been clear that the Municipal permission sought to be brought On record is dated 24-6-1976 which is after the date of the settlement. The copy itself was applied for on 20-8-1976 and supplied to the plaintiff on 7-12-1977. The copy itself was applied for on 20-8-1976 and supplied to the plaintiff on 7-12-1977. It is the date of the document sought to be brought on record which is material and not any other document which may have been with the plaintiff. The only lapse appears to be about the copy of the estimate which is dated 7-3-1973. For bringing it on record the imposition of costs would have been sufficient penalty in view of the latches committed by the plaintiff. The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff is not yet over. The defendant will have opportunity not only to cross-examine the plaintiff with reference to the aforesaid document but also will have an opportunity to lead evidence by way of rebuttal thereof. That apart, the distinction between good cause and sufficient cause has also been lost sight of by the learned trial Judge. What Order 13, rule 2 contemplates is existence of a good cause and not a sufficient cause: They are entirely two different concepts in the eye of law. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the plaintiff has made out a good cause for non-production of the aforesaid documents at earlier point of time. Revision allowed.