Judgment 1. The petitioners filed a title suit in the Court of Munsif at Hajipur for a declaration that the suit land is their self-acquired property and that the Deed of Gift executed by one Basmati Devi in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendants is void. 2. After close of the case for the plaintiffs on 23-9-1983 when the defendants were examining his witnesses in Court, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application for putting some documents in evidence and to get them proved through witness. The documents are in the nature of a sale deed and some municipal receipts. The learned Munsif on consideration of the facts of the case rejected the prayer solely on the ground that the plaintiffs did not file those documents earlier and the case of the plaintiffs having come to a close it is not open to examine further witness and to prove the documents. The order impugned is in challenge before this Court in revision. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a reference regarding those documents was made in the plaint and the contents thereof were fully detailed in the plaint, but the same could not be filed earlier as the documents were in deposit in a Bank in security and could not be got back earlier, inter alia, it has also been submitted that these documents are valuable piece of evidence and are required for the just decision of the case. It is stated that these documents show that the suit lands are separate property of the plaintiffs purchased from the source of their own earning. 4. In spite of the service of the notice none has appeared on behalf of the defendants opposite party to contest this application. 5. Heard the learned Advocate, who has drawn my attention to O.18 R.2(4) of the Civil PC (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). Cl.(4) of R.2 speaks, that notwithstanding anything contained therein the Court, may for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. 5. Heard the learned Advocate, who has drawn my attention to O.18 R.2(4) of the Civil PC (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). Cl.(4) of R.2 speaks, that notwithstanding anything contained therein the Court, may for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. Thus keeping in view the trend or the intent of the Legislature, supported by the amendment brought about by O.18 R.2(4), it is clear that the Court, should in order to achieve the ends of justice admit into evidence any documents that might be filed by any party if they are relevant, to the determination of the issues in the suit, subject to if need be, providing opportunity to the other side for a rebuttal. The expression "at any stage" referred to above means a stage before the pronouncement of judgment. 6. The Court in the order impugned has not expressed that the documents are meant to fill up any lacuna which may be a circumstance to reject the filing of the documents at a later stage. The petitioner has submitted that the recitals regarding the documents were there in the plaint and the same were duly replied by the defendants in the written statement. But the same could not be filed earlier as they were deposited in the Bank and there was delay in getting back the document. The order impugned further shows that the learned Magistrate has allowed the defendants to produce some document, but the plaintiffs" prayer has been rejected. In the impugned order, the learned Munsif has failed to give importance to the amended provisions and thus, the Court committed material irregularity in not considering the application of the petitioners on merit, which vitiates the order in question. 7. In the result, the application succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to afford reasonable opportunity to the plaintiffs petitioners to get the documents proved in evidence through their witnesses and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.