Judgment : These two revisions are directed against the orders of the court below granting permission under O.13, Rule 2, C.P.C, to the respondent to file additional list of documents. Learned counsel submits that in C.R.P.No.410 of 1992 an affidavit was filed setting out some reason for the delay in filing the documents. But, sufficient cause is not shown for producing the documents at a late stage. He submits that in C.R.P.No.411 of 1992 the respondent, did not even file an affidavit in support of the petition to explain the delay in filing the documents. In the typed set filed by him a copy of the petition is included. The petition refers to an affidavit accompanying the same. The petition is dated 10. 1991. In the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner he has categorically stated that no affidavit was filed along with the petition and no affidavit was served on him. Yet, the order of the court below does not consider the question as to whether an affidavit was filed or not. 2. The court below does not seem to have borne in mind the provisions of O.13, Rule 2, Sub-rule (1), C.P.C. The rule reads thus: “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.” 3. The rule is mandatory and it says that documents shall not be received unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non-production thereof at an early stage. A similar rule is found in 0.7, Rule 18, C.P.C. Under that Rule a document which ought to be produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, and which is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at the hearing of the suit. Thus the Code of Civil Procedure compels the party to file a list of documents either along with the plaint or at an early stage within the time prescribed therefor. It is brought to my notice that in spite of the Rules courts are taking it for grated that as and when documents are produced before the court before the conclusion of the trial they can be taken on file. The courts should desist from doing so. The courts should keep in mind the mandatory rules of the Code of Civil Procedure and act strictly in accordance therewith. 4. In the present case, the orders of the court below do not disclose the application of mind by the court to the Rules in question. But, I am not inclined to interfere in these revision petitions for the reason that the suit is of the year 1988 and it is already more than three years. Under the proviso to Sec.ll5(l), C.P.C, the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order made in the course of the suit or other proceedings except where (a) the order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. In view of the said proviso I am dismissing the revision petitions. However, I direct the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram to follow the Rules prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure strictly in future.