CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is by the defendant. She is aggrieved by the rejection of her application (I. A. No. VIll) by the trial Court made under order XIII Rules 1 and 2 G. P. C. to receive certain documentary evidence at the stage of the commencement of the evidence of the defendant. The sole ground for rejection is that those documents could not be produced earlier in compliance with the requirement of Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 and that there was enormous delay and the delay had not been explained at all in support of the prayer made in the application. Therefore, the present revision. ( 2 ) MR. S. Shivaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in this Court, does not dispute that the affidavit filed in support of the prayer in the trial Court was far from adequate to meet the requirements of sub-rule 2, but he however submits, it was by oversight and based on wrong advice. The thrust of his argument is that the object of a trial after having joined issues is to render justice and not to prevent justice. He submits that one should not be top technical and to deny an opportunity if the opportunity is not going to prejudice the other side. ( 3 ) AS against this, the Court also has to weigh the entire background of the case. The suit is of the year 1983. Issues were joined long ago. Plaintiff had closed his case in February 1988. In the mean while, even before the plaintiff had commenced his case, the original defendant had died and his legal representatives, the present revision petitioner, was brought on record. She also did not produce the documents after she came on record. It was in this background the learned trial Judge upheld the contentions of the Counsel for the plaintiff, respondent in this Court and rejected the application. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Shivaswamy, points out that some of the documents were in'existence at the appropriate time at which time it could have been produced in compliance with the requirement of Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If some of the documents came subsequently into existence, he contends, the party who relies on them, should not be shut out. If some of the documents came subsequently into existence, he contends, the party who relies on them, should not be shut out. That possibility cannot be ruled out but that ought to have been explained in the affidavit and not reserved for arguments before the revisional court. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the totality of circumstances, it is necessary that in order to meet the ends of justice that one should not be adamant about the procedural aspect and permit the defendant-revision petitioner, to adduce evidence as long as the Court is satisfied that it is not going to cause any prejudice to the plaintiff or his case. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter, deriving some support for the above view from the decision of this Court, rendered on 14-11- 1973, in the case of Yajaman Balagaiah v kalinge Gowda, in C. R. P. Nos. 1437 and 1517 of 1973, I allow this revision petition and direct the trial Court' to receive the documents now sought to be produced, subject only to this condition that any amplification of the affidavit already filed, shall be filed within 15 days from to-day in the Court below explaining the reasons as to why the documents could not be produced earlier in clear terms than what has been done so far so that the records may be straight. ( 7 ) REVISION is accordingly allowed. --- *** --- .