Judgment 1. This application has been filed on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2 against that part of the order dated 12-1-1980 by which three documents filed by the defendants-petitioners have been refused to be taken in evidence. 2. In brief, plaintiffs case was that the plaintiff instituted a Partition Suit (No. 146 of 1973) now pending for disposal in the Court of the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Madhubani vide P.S.No. 41/79 and the plaintiff claimed 1/4th share in various properties of several villages under different khatas. The petitioners jointly filed written-statement and stated that with respect to the properties of village Satlakha and Hussainpur under Khata Nos. 34 and 95 the father of the petitioners had only 1/8th share (excluding house property) in the aforesaid ancestral properties and the rest of the properties belonged to other persons (whose names, according to the defendants, had been given in the written statement) by virtue of inheritance as well as by "attainama" executed by Jainandan Mishra in favour of Raghav and Keshav Mishra (step uncles of the petitioners who were not parties to the suit). With regard to two plots out of the three plots in village Rahika, the petitioners stated that the said properties were self-acquired properties of the father of the petitioners and these petitioners and pro forma opposite party No. 3 later acquired this property by virtue of gift and over which the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 or other pro forma opposite party (excluding opposite party No. 3) had no concern at all. 3. According to Order XIII, Rule 1, C. P. C. the parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced. If so produced, at or before the settlement of the issues, the Court shall receive those documents provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in the proper firm. If so produced, at or before the settlement of the issues, the Court shall receive those documents provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in the proper firm. Documentary evidence in possession or power of the parties which should have been produced but not produced in accordance with Rule 1, Order XIII, may be received at any subsequent stage of the proceeding if good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non-production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. 4. In this case, on 16-5-1979 as well as on 22/23-7-79, the petitioners were directed to file documents on the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party. But, the petitioners did not comply with Courts orders, as mentioned above. Thereafter, according to the petitioners case, the petitioners, before the close of the plaintiffs evidence, filed the following three documents before the Courts :- (1) Attainama executed by Jainandan Mishra in favour of Raghav and Keshav Mishra. (step uncles of the petitioners). (2) Attainama executed by Rameshwar Mishra (father of petitioners) in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 3 i.e., petitioners and opposite party no. 3. (3) Quebala in favour of Rameshwer Mishra. When the petitioners filed these documents in Court on 11-1-1980, the plaintiff-opposite party objected to the same and filed a petition praying not to take the aforesaid document into evidence on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and also on the ground that the petitioners had failed to comply with the Courts earlier orders. To the objection petition filed by the plaintiff-opposite party, the petitioners filed a rejoinder and stated that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff-opposite party was still open. 5. Before this Court, the petitioners in para 6 of the revision application have stated as follows :- "....... The petitioners could not comply with the order of the Court since the documents were not in possession of the petitioners. Attainama in favour of step uncles of the petitioners was in possession of the donees son i.e., it was in possession of petitioners cousin brother Rajendra Mishra. The other documents were in custody of opposite party no. 3 (own brother of petitioners) and who is in service at Bombay. The petitioners in the aforesaid circumstances could not file the aforesaid documents in time despite of his best efforts." 6. The other documents were in custody of opposite party no. 3 (own brother of petitioners) and who is in service at Bombay. The petitioners in the aforesaid circumstances could not file the aforesaid documents in time despite of his best efforts." 6. There is no counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party. In fact, no body appears for the opposite party, except the Deputy Registrar, Guardian, for minor opposite party nos. 4 and 5. 7. The Court below, in view of the provisions contained in O.XIII, Rr.1 and 2 of the C. P. C. has refused to take those documents in evidence and has also held that the petitioners had not shown any cause, whatsoever, for his inability to file the same earlier. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not drawn my attention to any paper from which it could be verified that the petitioners had shown good cause for not producing those documents in time. The cause shown before this Court was never stated by the petitioners at the time they produced the documents before the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to satisfy this Court that a cause was shown in the rejoinder petition filed by the petitioners in the Court below. Hence, on the admitted fact that no cause was shown under R.2, O.XIII, of the C. P. C. the Court had no option but to refuse to take those documents in evidence. 9. Reference may be made to the case of Ram Gulam Choudhary V/s. Nawin Choudhary ( AIR 1972 Pat 499 at p. 502) wherein N.L. Untwalia, J., as he then was, has held that an order by which some documents were wrongly admitted in evidence while it ought to have been admitted is not an order in which there is such right or obligation of the parties decided which can make it a case decided to attract the provision of S.115 of the C. P. C. In the instant case, the position is just the reverse. The documents, which, according to the petitioners, ought to have been admitted have been wrongly rejected. In my opinion, it makes no difference so far as the principle decided in the case (supra) is concerned. 10. The documents, which, according to the petitioners, ought to have been admitted have been wrongly rejected. In my opinion, it makes no difference so far as the principle decided in the case (supra) is concerned. 10. The documents sought to be produced at a subsequent stage of the proceeding can be received by the Court only if good cause is shown for non-production thereof. As I have already held above, the petitioners admittedly showed no cause much less good cause to the Court below and, therefore, the Court below had no option but to refuse the documents to be taken in evidence. 11. I further hold that, on the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the Court below has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 12. In the result, the application is dismissed but without costs.