MILAP CHANDRA, J.—The revision petition No. 26/89 has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 19.11.88 by which he did not receive supplementary bill filed by the petitioner The revision petitions No. 35, 36 and 37/89 have been filed against similar orders of the Civil Judge, Merta dated 17.12.88 by which documents filed by the petitioners in their cases were not received. All these four revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as a common question is involved in them. 2. In all the four revision petitions, the learned counsel for the non petitioners have raised a preliminary objections that no revision petition lies under sec. 115 C.P.C. against an order passed under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. In support of their contention, they relied upon the decisions of their Lordships of toe Supreme Court in Managing Director (MIC) Hindustan, Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad vs. Ajit Prasad Tarve, Managrr Purchase and Stores, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanager, Hyderabad (1), M.L Sethi vs. R.P. Kapoor (2), Manak Chand Nandi vs. Devdas Nandi (3), Pandurang Dhondi vs. Maruti Hari, Jadhav, (4) and also on the decision of this court given in Radheyshyam vs. Nathuram (5). 3. In reply to the preliminary objection, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is perfectly maintainable against an order passed under O. 13 R. 2, C.P.C, if it is passed by the Court with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. They further contended that revision petitions are being entertained and allowed against such orders. They placed reliance upon Ramjilal v. Durgalal(6), Nand Kishore v. S. Budharam (7), Nanu Ram v. Vardhichand (8), Jagannath v. Jodha Ram (9), Municipal Council Bharatpur v. Gokalchand (10), R.N. Dhoot V. B.R. Shroti(ll), Bhikari Charan vs Basanti (12), Ganesh Ram vs. Paras Finance Co. (13), Yaqoob Ali v. F. Haji Taj Khanji Ibrahimji (14), Karnataka Agro Corporation v. A. Narain Nayak (15), Khanchand H. Chaklani v. Suresh Ramchand Gangani (16) and order dated November 1, 1988 passed in Civil Revision No. 72/84 Banshilal vs. Smt. Chhagani Devi & other. "4. Order 13 Rule 2 (1), C.P.C. runs as under:-. 2. (13), Yaqoob Ali v. F. Haji Taj Khanji Ibrahimji (14), Karnataka Agro Corporation v. A. Narain Nayak (15), Khanchand H. Chaklani v. Suresh Ramchand Gangani (16) and order dated November 1, 1988 passed in Civil Revision No. 72/84 Banshilal vs. Smt. Chhagani Devi & other. "4. Order 13 Rule 2 (1), C.P.C. runs as under:-. 2. Effect of non production of documents (1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing." It plainly says that no documentary evidence shall be received after the settlement of issues unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for its nan production and reasons shall be recorded for receiving it. Under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the court has jurisdiction to hold rightly or wrong!y that good cause to its satisfaction has been or has not been shown for the late production of a document. Such a decision has no relation to the question of jurisdiction of the court. If the court has failed to record any reason for receiving any document at a late stage, it may be said that it has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The above quoted provisions specifically require the recording of reasons by the court while accepting a document. However, no reason is required to be recorded for not accepting a document at a late stage. In such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with materia] irregularity. In all these four cases, trial courts have given reasons in their orders for not receiving the documents. None of the documents is going to affect the ultimate decision of the case in which it has been filed. The mere fact that decision is erroneous in fact or in law does not amount to illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. In all these four cases, trial courts have given reasons in their orders for not receiving the documents. None of the documents is going to affect the ultimate decision of the case in which it has been filed. The mere fact that decision is erroneous in fact or in law does not amount to illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It is well settled law that the expression "illegal" is to be taken to mean "in breach of some provisions of law" and the expression "with material irregularity" to mean "by committing some error of procedure in the course of trial which is material in that it may here effected the ultimate decision." 5. It has been held in M.L. Sethi vs. R.P. Kapoor, (supra) that an erroneous order on a question of law which has no relation to question of jurisdiction of that court cannot be corrected under Section 115, C.P.C. It has been held in Pandurang Dhondi v. Maruti Hanjadhav, (supra) that High Court cannot under Sec. 115, C.P.C. correct error of facts or law, howsoever, gross they may be and it can do so only when the Said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the court. 6. It has been observed in M. L. & B. Corporation v. Bhutnath, (17) as under: — "(15) We are therefore of opinion that the High Court fell in error in interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Subordinate. Judge with respect to the appellants having sufficient cause for not making an application for bringing the respondents on record within time and for not applying for the setting aside of the abatements within time." 7. It has been observed in Hindustan Aeronautics V. Ajit Prasad, (supra), as under:— "5. In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not be invoked its jurisdiction under s. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code; See the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhoni v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, (supra) and D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. Sarup Singh (18)." 8. Great reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Municipal Council Bharatpur v. Gokul Chand, (supra). It is correct that Radheyshyam v. Nathuram, (supra), has been referred to in it. But nothing has been said about it. 9. In Gram Panchayat Keharpura v. State of Rajastban(l9), Jagannath v. Jodharam(supra), Nanuram V. Vardichand,(supra), Ramjilal v. Durgalal,(supra) Karnataka Agro Inds.Cor. Ltd., v. A.Narayana Nayak,(supra) & Shri Khanchand H.Chatlani by L.Rs. v. Sri Suresh Ramchand Gangani,(supra), no question under sec. 115 C.P C. was involved. In R.N. Dhoot & Co. V/s B.R. Shroti.(supra), order was passed under Order 13 Rule 2, C.P.C. by the court on the Original side. In Ganeshram v. Paras Finance Co. (supra), it has been held that against an error of law if it effect ultimate decision of the case, revision lies. In Yaqoobali v. F.Haji Taj Khanji Ibrahimji, (supra), it has not been held that revision lies even if no question regarding the exercise of jurisdiction is involved. In Civil Revision No. 72/84, Banshilal v. Smt. Chhagni Devi, the document in question itself came into existence after the framing of issues and was filed before commencement of the evidence of the parties. Under these facts and circumstances, this Court held that the trial court exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity in refusing to accept it on the ground of delay. 10. Thus there is a great force in the preliminary objection. Revision Petitions are not maintainable under Sec. 115, C.P.C. 11. Consequently, all the four revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Let the original order be kept in the file of S. B.C. R. No. 26/89 and copy be placed in each file of other civil revisions.