S. N. SAPRA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS filed an application, under Order 13 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, thereby, seeking permission of the trial Court, to produce various docu- ments, on the grounds, mentioned therein. ( 2 ) VIDE ord dated July 3, 1989, learned Trial Court allowed the pro- duction of two documents, but in respect of others, the application was dis- missed. Petitioners filed an application,for review of the order. Same was dismissed, vide order dated August 8, 1989, on the ground, that it was time barred. ( 3 ) THE present revision petition is directed against these orders. ( 4 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as under :- Petitioners filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,400. 00 , against respondent, on account of arrears of rent, from November 21, 1981 to September 30, 1983,-at the rate of Rs. l,700. 00 per mensem, electricty charges, damages etc, in March, 1984. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to petitioners, on or about July 4, 1977, they let out the premises No. N-226, Greater Kailash part I, New Delhi, to respondent for period of 3 years, at a monthly rent of Rs. l,000. 00. ( 6 ) FROM January 1, 1980 to March 1, 1980, the premises were again let out to respondent, at the monthly rent of Rs. l,500. 00. However, from March 1, 1980, the premises were let out to respondent, at the rate of Rs. l700. 00 per mensem It was further alleged that in the month of August, 1980, petitioner no I let out the permises, for a limited period of 3 years, with the permission of the Rent Controller, Delhi, under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act, at the monthly rent of Rs. l,700. 00. On or about September 30, 1983, respondent handed over the possession of the permises to petitioners and ceased to be the tenant. ( 7 ) FROM the record, it appears that it took a considerable long time serve respondent, in suit. to ( 8 ) IN his written statement filed in September, 1938, respondent admitted the relationship of Landlord and tenant. On merits, respondent alleged the petioners had no right to make any increase in the rent, but, petitioner No. I had coerced respondent, to increase the rent, under threat of eviction. Thus, the increase of rent, in excess of Rs. 1000. On merits, respondent alleged the petioners had no right to make any increase in the rent, but, petitioner No. I had coerced respondent, to increase the rent, under threat of eviction. Thus, the increase of rent, in excess of Rs. 1000. 00 , was illegal and the. amount, so received by petitioner, was liable to be refuned back to respondent. It was further alleged that the possession was handed over on or about May 31, 1983, and all the arrears of rent were cleared upto that date. ( 9 ) FOLLOWING issues were framed, by the trial Court on 12th October 1988: 1. Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1. 7uo. 00 for the period 21. 11. 1982 to 31. 9. 1983? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay electricity charges amounting to Rs. 2289. 89 ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages amounting to Rs. 2,600/. . 4. Relief. ( 10 ) BEFORE the commencement of the evidence, and in May, 1989, petitioners filed 13 documents, details of which were given in the Index of documents, in the trial Court. ( 11 ) PETITIONERS filed an application, dated May 16, 1989 under Order 13 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, thereby, seeking permission of the trial Court to bling the documents on the record. ( 12 ) VIDE the impugned order dated July, 3, 1989, the learned trial Court allowed petitioners to bring on record two documents, namely, a cheque and lettcr dated April 5, 1983, purported to be on behalf of respondent. In respect of other documents, the application was dismissed. ( 13 ) PETITIONERS filed an application, for review of the order, under Order 47 of. Civil. Procedure Code. This application was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated August 8, 1989, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. ( 14 ) THE contention, urged before me by petitioner no. 2, was that the trial Court acted with material irregularity, in not appreciating the law on the point, and ignoring the good cause, shown by petitioners, in not producing the documents in time. The trial Court allowed petitioners to produce two docu- ments which means that the trial Court was satisfied with the good cause, as alleged in the application. 2, was that the trial Court acted with material irregularity, in not appreciating the law on the point, and ignoring the good cause, shown by petitioners, in not producing the documents in time. The trial Court allowed petitioners to produce two docu- ments which means that the trial Court was satisfied with the good cause, as alleged in the application. Moreover, all the documents were relevant and the same were produced before the commencement of the evidence. Reliance has been,placed upon the judgments in Madan Gopol Kanodia v. Mamraj and Ors. AIR 1976 Supreme Court 461 and Ramnath Nandlal Dhoot and Co. and Anr. v. B. R. Shroti and Ors. AIR 1980 Bombay 387. ( 15 ) ORDER 13 Rules I and 2 of Civil Procedure Code are reproduced as under: (1) "documentary evidence to be produced at or before the settlement of issues. (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their posses- sion or purpose. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced : Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. 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 I 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. (2) Nothing in sub rule (1) shall apply to docu- ments,- (a) produced for the cross examination of the witnesses of the other party, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. " Rule I provides that all the documents, in possession or power of the parties, and on which they intend to rely, shall be produced at or before the settlement of issues. " Rule I provides that all the documents, in possession or power of the parties, and on which they intend to rely, shall be produced at or before the settlement of issues. Rule 2 further provides that no documentary evidence, in the possession or power of any party, which has not been produced, in accordance with Rule I above, shall not be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, unless, good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court, for the non produc- tion of these documents. ( 16 ) WHAT is a good cause, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The object bebind the aforesaid Rules, is to prevent the belated production of the documents, so as, to avoid injustice to the other party. But, a discretion has been given to the Court, to allow the production of documents, at any stage, if it is satisfied that the documents have not been produced, on account of a good cause. . ( 17 ) IN Madanlalkanodia (supra), the Supreme Court held. that the object of Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. , is merely to prevent belated production of documents, so that, it may not work injustice to the other side. But, it was further held, that this provision clearly empowers the Court, with a discretion to allow production of documents, if it is satisfied that good cause is shown. ( 18 ) IN Ramnath Nandlal Dhoot and Co. and Ors. (supra) it was held that parties to tender the documents inevidence, have to show good cause, to the satisfaction of the Court. Good cause is that which is adequate, sound and genuine ground or reasons. What is good cause, will depend upon thefacts and circumstances of each case. After discussing the case law,the Court allowed the production of documents, ( 19 ) PETITIONERS claim against respondent included the arrears of rent, at the rate of Rs. l,700. 00 per mensem. for a particular period, charged for electri- city etc. For the first time, in his written statement, filed in 1988, though the suit was filed in the year 1984, re pondent, disputed the period, on the ground that he had delivered the possession on May 31, 1983. Puttier, with regard to the rate of rent, respondent alleged that the rent was Increased, on account of coercion. For the first time, in his written statement, filed in 1988, though the suit was filed in the year 1984, re pondent, disputed the period, on the ground that he had delivered the possession on May 31, 1983. Puttier, with regard to the rate of rent, respondent alleged that the rent was Increased, on account of coercion. In their application, under Order 13 Rule 2 of Civi Procedure Code, petitioners stated that they were not able to produce the documents, including the certified copies of the application, filed under Section 2l. of Delhi Rent Control Act and counter foils etc. , because on account of great difficulty, they could manage to get the same. It was further statedl that they misplaced the cheque, as well as, the correspondence with respondent including the counter foils of the rent receipts, during the shifting of their house. It was further alleged that on account of the same, they were not in possession of the file, containing the aforesaid documents. ( 20 ) THE observations of the trial Court in the impugned order, that the application was malafide, are without any basis. This observation does not find support from the records. How, it is malafide, learned trial Court has not given any reasons. Moreover, the trial Court permitted the petitioners to produce two documents. It means that good cause was shown for these two documents. In fact, the trial Court failed to consider the reasons, I given by the petitioners, in their applications and thus acted with material Irregularity. ( 21 ) IN considering the relevancy of the documents, the trial Court closely scrutinised each documents. In my opinion, this is against law. This was not a stage to subject the documents to close scrutiny, for the purposes of deciding an application, under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. Whether, the documems were relevant or not, ought to have been considered by the trial Court. ( 22 ) IN my opinion the trial Court did not apply its mind, in considering whether, the documents were relevant or not. Admilted, limited tennancy was created, with the permission of the Additional Rent Controller, under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act. Petitioners wanted to produce the certified copies of the application and the orders. The application, under Section 21 of the Act, in fact, contains the terms and conditions of the lease. Admilted, limited tennancy was created, with the permission of the Additional Rent Controller, under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act. Petitioners wanted to produce the certified copies of the application and the orders. The application, under Section 21 of the Act, in fact, contains the terms and conditions of the lease. This document is very relevant because, it will throw light upon the controversy between the parties. Moreover, prima fade, there is no possibility of fabricating these documents. ( 23 ) PETITIONERS also wanted to produce 32 counterfoils of rent receipts of various dates. The learned trial Court has rejected the plea on the ground, that these counter foils were not signed. This was not a stage to make such observations. The fact is that these counter foils are very relevant. Similarly the other documents, as mentioned in the list of documents were relevant. One is the bill dated January 18, 1984, from Subhash Furnitures. Similarly, one document is the certified statemect of DESU, in regard to the electric connec- tion in the house, from January, 1984 uptil March, 1984. One is the copy of the letter dated September 3". 1983, sent by respondent s sister-in-law, to S. D. O. Telephones, to New Delhi. The original application is with the telephone depart- ment and there are no chances for its being manufactured. Others are registered AD and postal receipts. One is the copy of the notice. ( 24 ) IN my view, and in the interest of justice, the applications of the peti- tioners ought to have been allowed. Moreover, the evidence has not started yet. Respondent shall have the ample opportunity to rebul these documents. Consi- dering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no surprise to respondent if these documents are allowed, to be produced nor any injustice will be caused to him. ( 25 ) UNDER the circumstances, I allow the revision petition. Application for the petitioners filed under Order 13 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. stands allowd. Parties are left to bear their own costs.