JUDGMENT 1. - These two revisions have been directed against the order dated 20-9-1989, passed by learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, in Civil Suit Nos. 10/89 and 11/89, whereby the applications of the petitioners submitted under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. were rejected. As the facts of both the revisions are similar and as both the applications were rejected by the learned Civil Judge by one common order, both the revisions are decided by one common order. 2. The brief relevant facts of these revisions are that Bharosilal petitioner sold the disputed property by two registered sale deeds dated 24-7-1984, and 28-7-1984, for Rs. 10,000/- each in the names of Bhagwati Lal and Nav Ratan. The plaintiff non-petitioner filed two suits on 29-8-1984, for preemption against Bharosilal Bhagwati Lal and Bharosilal-Navratan. In both these suits, the petitioners, submitted written statement. 10,000/- each in the names of Bhagwati Lal and Nav Ratan. The plaintiff non-petitioner filed two suits on 29-8-1984, for preemption against Bharosilal Bhagwati Lal and Bharosilal-Navratan. In both these suits, the petitioners, submitted written statement. In Para No. 10 of the written statement, they mentioned as under : " ;g fd oLrq fLFkfr ;g gS fd izfroknh ua0 2 dks viuh O;kikfjd vko';drk gsrq :i;ksa dh t:jr FkhA izfroknh ua0 1 izfroknh ua0 2 dk utnhdh fj'rsnkj ( lkyk ) yxrk gSA izfroknh ua0 2 o oknh xaxkiqj izfroknh ua0 1 ds firk Jh Hkxorhyky ikl vk;s vkSj mudks 20000@& :i, dh vko';drk crkbZA pwafd fj'rsnkjh dh fodz; i= dh jftLV~h muds uke djus dh 'krZ j[kh vkSj C;kt lfgr :i;k vnk dj nsus ij iqu% jftLV~h muds feu izfroknh ds gd esa djk nsus ds fy, dgkA pwafd izfroknh dks :i;ksa dh l[r t:jr Fkh vkSj Lo;a oknh us Hkh feu izfroknh dks mijksDr 'krZ Lohdkj djus ds fy, dgkA bl izfroknh ua0 1 ds firk Jh Hkxorhyky us feu izfroknh dks 20000@& :i, udn dtZ fn, vkSj mlds ,ot esa crkSj lqj{kk uhps dh eafty ds fodz; i= dh jftLV~h 10000@& :i, esa izfroknh ua0 1 ds uke o mij dh eafty ds fodz; i= dh jftLV~h izfroknh ua0 1 ds firk Jh Hkxorhyky ds uke djk nhA izfroknh ua0 2 us Hkxothyky ds gd esa ;g bdjkjukek Hkh fy[k fn;k fd og mijksDr jkf'k 20000@& :i, e; C;kt ykSVk nsxk vkSj iqu% edku dh jftLV~h izfroknh ua0 2 ds uke djk nsxk vkSj blh vk'k; dh ,d ufoLr Hkh Hkxorhyky ls feu izfroknh ds gd esa fy[k nhA " The trial court framed Issues on 15-7-1986,Issue No. 3 is as below:- " D;k tokcnkos ds en ua0 10 esa mYysf[kr vk/kkjksa ij izfroknh ua0 2 }kjk fodz; i= dh jftLV~h izfroknh ua0 1 ds gd esa egt lqj{kk dh n`f"V ls djokbZ Fkh vkSj edkfu;r ij dksbZ dCtk ugha fn;k rFkk ;g gLrkUrj.k oS/kkfud u gksus ls oknh oknxzLr tk;nkn ij gd'kQk ugha gSA " 3. On 24-7-1989, before the evidence of the plaintiff was started, the petitioners in both the cases submitted applications under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C., mentioning therein that on 25-7-1984, there was an agreement in writing on stamp paper between Bhagwatilal and Bharosilal for reselling the disputed-property to Bharosilal, of which reference is also made in Para No. 10 of the written statement; that Issue No. 3 has also been framed on the allegations of written statement : that after the aforesaid agreement, the disputed property was re-sold on 25-9-1984, by registered sale deed to Bharosilal for which there is a reference in Para No. 10 of the written statement; that the aforesaid documents were not in possession of the petitioners at the time of framing of issues ; that both these documents were with the wife of Bhagwatilal ; that the wife of Bhagwatilal left the documents at the house of her brother at Kota ; that the documents were mixed in some other papers and were not traceable at the relevant time ; that on 2-7-1989, when they went to Kota, they found the documents; that under these circumstances the documents could not be produced at the time of framing of the issues and that the suit is at the primary stage. It was prayed that the documents be taken on record. The applications were supported by an affidavit of Bharosilal. It was prayed that the documents be taken on record. The applications were supported by an affidavit of Bharosilal. The plaintiff non-petitioner opposed the applications by alleging that both the documents are basis of the defence of the petitioners and as such the petitioners should have filed the documents along with the written statement under 0.8 R. 1 and 2 CPC., that if the documents were not in possession of the petitioners at the relevant time the petitioners should have shown the documents in the list ; that the suit is pending since 17-11-1986, for the evidence of the plaintiff ; that the petitioners have not shown any sufficient reason for not filing the documents at the time of framing of the issues; that the agreement is doubtful ; that this averment of the petitioners that the documents were in possession of the wife of Biiagwati and she left them at her brother's house at Kota, can not be believed ; that the agreement was not ready and as such the petitioners did not file the same previously and that the documents have been prepared intentionally later on for defeating the plaintiff's right. It was prayed that the application be dismissed. The trial court vide its order dated 20-9-1989, dismissed the application of the petitioners and thus refused to take the documents submitted by the petitioners on record. Against this order, the petitioners filed the present revisions. 4. Mr. Goyal, counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court did not apply its judicial mind and rejected the applications of the petitioners in arbitrary way. He argued that the petitioners specifically mentioned in para No. 10 of the written statement that there was an agreement between Bharosilal and Bhagwatilal for reselling the property. He further argued that the trial court has also framed Issue No. 3 on the point. Under these circumstances, in case the documents are not taken on record, the case of the petitioners is likely to be prejudiced. He further argued that the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction at this stage in holding that the agreement appears to be doubtful only on the ground that no date of agreement was mentioned in the written statement. Under these circumstances, in case the documents are not taken on record, the case of the petitioners is likely to be prejudiced. He further argued that the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction at this stage in holding that the agreement appears to be doubtful only on the ground that no date of agreement was mentioned in the written statement. He argued that dates of registered sale-deeds were also not mentioned in the written statement and as such it cannot be said that the document was prepared later on to defeat the right of the plaintiff. He argued that both the documents are genuine and have material bearing on the case. He further argued that the petitioners have given sufficient reason in their application for not producing the documents at the relevant time but the trial court has rejected the application on frivolous reasons. If the stamp of the agreement was in the name of wife of Bhagwatilal or the mother of Navratan Mal, it makes no difference. He argued that the trial court by holding the agreement to be doubtful, has passed an order, which pre-judicially affects the case of the petitioners. He also argued that though the trial court found the registered sale deeds to be relevant for the decision of case but erred in rejecting the applications on the ground of delay and for not showing sufficient reasons for the same whereas the petitioners have given sufficient reasons for delay. By refusing to take them on record, the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law. In support of his arguments, Mr. Goya], placed reliance on A.I.R. 1983 Patna 35, Mahanth Som Prakash Das v. Sri Udasin Panchayati Akhara Bara and others , 1987 (II) R.L R. 248, Municipal Council, Bharatpur v. Gokul Chand and another , 1960 RLW 321, Gyaniram v. Gulab Chand , A.I.R. 1986 Delhi 301, Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran v. Amrit Lal Chopra and others and A.I.R. 1980 Bombay 387, Ramnath Nandlal Dhoot & Co. and another v. B.R. Shroti and others ). 5. On the other hand, Mr. and another v. B.R. Shroti and others ). 5. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-non- petitioner argued that the trial court has given valid reasons for rejecting the documents; that the stamp of agreement was in the name of Gaeta Devi and not in the name of Bharosilal and Bhagwatilal; that the sale deeds were executed in the name of Bhagwatilal and Navratan in July 1984, and the plaintiff filed the present suit for preemption on 29.8.1984; that to defeat the right of the plaintiff, the petitioners prepared the agreement alleged to have been executed between Bhagwatilal and Bharosilal on 25.8.1984, that the sale deeds which were executed on 4.9.1984, and 5.9.1984, are not relevant for the decision of the case and further that this Court should not interfere in the discretionary order passed by the trial court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and the rulings cited at the Bar. 7. In A.I.R. 1980 Bombay, 387 (supra), the facts were that after the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, when the evidence of the defendant was in progress, the defendant wanted to produce documents which were neither produced nor disclosed before the settlement of issues. The Bombay High Court held as under : "After considering the nature of the suit, the nature of the documents and pleadings of parties, the production should be allowed. There was no design or strategy in not disclosing them earlier when they were helpful to decide rightly the controversy." 8. In the present case though the documents were not produced before the trial court at or before the framing of issues, nor they were separately mentioned in the list which is required under Order 8 C.P.C. but the reference of documents find place in the written statement itself and as such it can not be said that they were not disclosed prior to the framing of issues. Not only this, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court also framed Issue No. 3, in the case. Not only this, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court also framed Issue No. 3, in the case. The documents which the defendant wants to produce are also relevant to decide the controversy between the parties, though the trial court his expressed doubt regarding the agreement on the ground that the date of Agreement was not mentioned In the written statement and further that the stamp of the agreement was purchased in the name of wife of Shri Bhagwati prasad. In this connection, it can be said that the dates of the registered sale-deeds were also not mentioned in the written statement. The trial court has already framed Issue No. 3, regarding the case set up by the defendant petitioners. Expressing any opinion regarding genuineness or otherwise of the documents at this stage, may effect the case of the parties. The evidence of the parties has not started as yet. There appears to be no reason to disbelieve the statement of the petitioners that the documents were with the wife of Bhagwati Prasad, who left them at her brother's house and that the documents were not traceable at the relevant time.Bearing in mind that there was no apparent reason with the petitioners to withhold the documents which were relevant for the decision of the case & which have also been mentioned in the written-statement & for which issue has already been framed, the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the documents could not be produced due to the reasons mentioned above, can not be brushed-aside lightly. The interest of justice requires that proper opportunity should be afforded to the petitioners to prove the documents. Is is also pertinent to note that whereas R.2 of 0.13 provides that 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. Rule 8A of Order 8 provides that where a defendant bases his defence upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document or a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. Sub-rule (2) of the aforesaid rules provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but is not so produced, shall not,without the leave of the Court,be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Though under Rule 2 of Order 13, the party has to give sufficient reasons for non-production of the document which was in the power and possession, sub-rule (2) of Order 8A, does not provide that the defendant has to give sufficient reasons for non-production of the document but only refers that the defendant shall not with the leave of the Court produce the document under sub-rule 2 of Order 8A. 9. Under these circumstances, looking to the facts of the case particularly the facts that the petitioners have disclosed the documents in their written statement and there was no apparent reasons for with-holding the documents, the reasons given by the petitioners for non-production of the documents at or before the framing of issues appears to be reasonable. The case is at the initial stage. The evidence of the plaintiff is to start and as such it can not be said that the plaintiff non-petitioner will be prejudiced in any way on account of taking of these documents on record. If the trial court comes to the conclusion at the time of deciding the case that the documents were forged by the petitioners, the trial court will take strong action against the petitioner and will also prosecute the persons who prepared the forged documents. But at this stage, no opinion can be expressed as stated above regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the documents In my opinion, the trial court committed serious illegality and irregularity in refusing to take the documents on record and in case the order of the trial court is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of Justice. 10. But at this stage, no opinion can be expressed as stated above regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the documents In my opinion, the trial court committed serious illegality and irregularity in refusing to take the documents on record and in case the order of the trial court is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of Justice. 10. Consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order dated 20.9.1989, passed in both the cases and allow the applications of the petitioners for taking the documents on record. The petitioners will pay Rs. 200/- of cost in each case to the non-petitioner before tendering the documents in evidence.Revision Allowed. *******