B. PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THE legality, propriety and validity of the Order No. 110 dated 17th June, 1994 passed by the 3rd Assistant District Judge at Alipore allowing the application filed by the plaintiff/opposite parties respondent is called in question in this revisional application. ( 2 ) THE opposite parties-plaintiffs fled the title Suit No. 260/83 for ejectment of the revision petitioner F. D. Stewart Pvt. Ltd. It is claimed by the petitioner that the opposite parties-plaintiffs had suppressed the summons of the suit and when if came to the notice of the petitioner about such salt the petitioner F. D. Stewart Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for declaration that the petitioner is a lawful tenant under the opposite parties, in Title Suit No. 80/1994, and also made an application in the suit filed by the opposite parties for being added as a defendant therein. The petitioner, was, however, impleaded subsequently as a defendant in the suit filed by the opposite parties. ( 3 ) IT is claimed by the opposite parties-plaintiff that there is a Nursery School functioning in the first floor of the building whereas the salt property is situated on the ground floor. Thus, the plaintiff-opposite parties filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of reasonable requirement. ( 4 ) IT appears that the plaintiffs filed an application on or about 27th January, 1994 for acceptance of some documents appended to the application comprising professional tax receipts, Insurance policy, Greenage Montessary House, Bank Account and five salary receipts. The ground for filling such document late has been stated before the trial court that some of them were misplaced and the others could be collected after the evidence of P. W. 2. The said application was opposed by the petitioner but, however, the learned Trial Court was not impressed with the objection of the petitioner, passed an order to accept those documents in evidence subject to proof and also allowed witnessess of the plaintiff to be recalled for proving those documents. ( 5 ) MR. J. L. Adhikari, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner urged vehemently that the trial court has manifestly committed an error in accepting the documents filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties inasmuch as those documents were available with the opposite parties-plaintiff, and those were intentionally withheld from being produced before the court. ( 5 ) MR. J. L. Adhikari, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner urged vehemently that the trial court has manifestly committed an error in accepting the documents filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties inasmuch as those documents were available with the opposite parties-plaintiff, and those were intentionally withheld from being produced before the court. Such belated filing of the documents substantially takes away the right of the petitioner to challenge the varacity and probative value of those documents and thereby would cause serious prejudice to their case. ( 6 ) MR. P. K. Samanta, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties plaintiffs has however, in course of submission draw my attention that those documents were necessary for the just conclusion of the case, and by such late filling it does not take away the right of the opposite parties. If those documents found otherwise necessary for just conclusion of the case, the court should not shut out an opportunity of a party from filing them. He has indicated that some of those documents were public documents, another bunch of documents maintained in regular course of business, to other words, official documents and other receipts granted by erstwhile employees regarding the receipt of salary whose veracity could hardly be disputed. ( 7 ) THE only contentious issue raised before this Court is whether late filling of documents by the plaintiff-opposite parties can be the only ground to reject them from consideration. The parameter of the provision of Order 13 Rule 2 has been considered in a number of decisions of this Court as well as other High Courts. The object of the Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 cannot be interpreted to penalise the party but to secure a fair trial of the case. But, however. where an application is moved malafide to cause delay or vexatious the cause shown cannot be held to be good cause to the satisfaction of this Court. These salutary provisions of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 are to the benefit of the party who wants to file the document which were previously beyond his knowledge or could not be traced out despite diligent search. Where, however, the documents are vital and would assist the Court in coming to a decision the doors shall not be shut out. Where, however, the documents are vital and would assist the Court in coming to a decision the doors shall not be shut out. The above observation is buttressed from a decision reported in AIR 1985 Orissa page 49, (Bhikari Charan Patra v. Basanti Bewa and. ors.) which is quoted hereunder :-"the object of the Rr. 1 and 2 of 0. 13 is not to penalise the party but to secure a fair trial of the case, where 0. 13, R 2 is invoked malafide, where the move is to cause delay or is vexatious, the cause shown cannot be held to be good cause shown to the satisfactions of the Court The doors of the discretionary jurisdiction should be closed. Where, however, the document is vital and would assist the court in coming to a decision, the doors should not be shut out. In a suit for deletion of entry against a plot of land in the record of rights that defendant was in possession of plot on basis of oral sale, the defendant filed a petition under 0. 13 R. 1 for filing of documents relating to a joint petition of both the parties to Panchayati requesting them to settle the dispute about the right of parties over the plot of land and its decision. A reason for belated filing of the documents given was that the documents were not available to the defendant as they were in possession of Bhadraloks and they had been filed as soon as they were traced out and handed over to him. More-over, the plaintiff was cross-examined with reference to those documents. The application was rejected. Held, the order of rejection was liable to be set aside as the Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity in rejecting the application. There was no question of manufacturing evidence to suit the purpose. Moreover, the other side could have been given an opportunity to meet the situation. " ( 8 ) SUCH question had also appeared before the apex court for consideration more often than not and the apex court has held to the case of Madan Gopal Kanodia v Maniram and Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC at page 461 :-" Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for any particular ritualistic formula in which the order of the Court has to be passed. reported in AIR 1976 SC at page 461 :-" Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for any particular ritualistic formula in which the order of the Court has to be passed. The object of Order 13, Rule 2 is merely to prevent belated production of documents, so that it may not work injustice to the defendant. This provision clearly clothes the Court with discretion to allow, production of documents. If it is satisfied that good cause is shown to its satisfaction. The Nakal Bahis invoices and other documents were filed by the plaintiff along with the written statement containing better particulars. These documents were filed in pursuance of the order of the Court which was moved by the defendants themselves. The Court had passed an express order condoning the delay and directing the defendants to record their admission or denial of the documents. The defendants never look away any objection or exception to the filing of those documents but complied with the order of the Court in regard to their admission or denial of the documents. The defendants had further ample opportunity to rebut these documents and to show that they were not genuine as the evidence had not begun. The original Khata and the original rokar had been filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. The entries contained in the Nakal Bahis were merely reproduction of the entries in the original Khata. Therefore, the question of the entries in Nakal Bahia being fabricated or spurious could not aries. The Nakal Bahis merely gave further particulars or details of the entries already mentioned in the ledger or the Khata. If in these circumstances, therefore. the Court exercised its discretion under Order 13, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code or condone the delay and allowed the plaintiff to produce the documents no error at all had been committed by the Trial Court "decision of Allahabad High Court, Reversed. "bearing the above principle in mind, analysing the facts of the case it appears that the examination of the plaintiffs witnesses is not yet over. The examination of P. W. 2 is only completed. At this stage the leave was asked by the plaintiff-opposite parties for filing those documents and for recall of the plaintiffs witnesses to prove those document. "bearing the above principle in mind, analysing the facts of the case it appears that the examination of the plaintiffs witnesses is not yet over. The examination of P. W. 2 is only completed. At this stage the leave was asked by the plaintiff-opposite parties for filing those documents and for recall of the plaintiffs witnesses to prove those document. ( 9 ) THE main thrust of the petitioner's argument is that in case the opposite-parties plaintiffs are permitted to file those documents it may amount to filling up of lacuna which was brought out in course of cross examination of their witnesses. I am at a loss to understand how the lacuna which has occurred is likely to be filled up by introduction of such documentary evidence. From the list of documents filed before the trial court it appears that most of them are official or public documents and the rest shall be admitted in evidence subject to proof and relevance. ( 10 ) IN the above context, the petitioner shall get adequate opportunity to cross-examine at length about probative value and veracity. That does not fetter the right of the plaintiff from filing those documents in Court. In this connection, the opposite parties filed the decision reported in 92 CWN at page 1215, this court has indicated the stage where the admissibility of evidence and the probative value could be considered. Therefore, the party should not be shut out to file the documents before the Court. Thereby he may suffer serious prejudice unless such application was held to be vexatious and malafide. ( 11 ) WHILE considering an application filed under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 the Court has untramelled powers to exercise his discretion unless in its opinion the application so filed was designed and vexatiously made. The revisional court should be wary and circumspect, while disturbing such exercise of discretion by the Trial Court. When there is no patent illegality in exercise of jurisdiction, the revisional court should be slow to interfere with such order. ( 12 ) IN the above conspectus of the case and on serious cogitation of the matter I found that the petitioner has failed to satisfy that the trial Court has committed any manifest jurisdictional error calling for interference by this Court. ( 12 ) IN the above conspectus of the case and on serious cogitation of the matter I found that the petitioner has failed to satisfy that the trial Court has committed any manifest jurisdictional error calling for interference by this Court. ( 13 ) IN the result, the revisional application being bereft of merit is dismissed but parties are directed to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.