JUDGMENT This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 31.8.1995 passed by Shri A.N. Vijay, First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Guna, whereby he allowed the application under Order 13 R. 2. Briefly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for partition against defendants which was contested. Issues were framed and the evidence was recorded. It was fixed for final arguments and several dates were adjourned. On 28.8.95, an application was moved by the defendant purporting to be under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for permission to file notice dated 20.12.73, which has been allowed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the impugned order is illegal inasmuch as the Court did not exercise proper jurisdiction. No good cause was shown and the said application could not be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand urged that the impugned order does not amount a case decided and no revision lies. The words 'good cause' occurring in Order 13 Rule 2 CPC have to be given liberal construction and an order allowing an application should not be interfered with. Application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was moved at a later stage when the case has already concluded and the document was sought to be filed because it could not be filed due to mistake. The word used in the application is 'SAHAWAN'. In 1982 WN 175 (Harprasad v. Devendra Singh it was held that order allowing to produce documents under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC should not be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no dispute also about the fact that the application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was moved at a late stage when the case had already concluded. The term good cause used under Order 12 R. 2 CPC has to be liberally construed. Another authority relied upon in the same journal i.e. Rupchand v. Kapurchand (1982 WN 460), this Court held that where the trial Court permitted filing of document under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC it is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon Babusingh v. Dwarkaprasad [1980 (1) WN 45]. This Court held that the provisions of O. 13 R. 2 CPC are discretionary. Vexatious and dilatory applications cannot be allowed. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon Babusingh v. Dwarkaprasad [1980 (1) WN 45]. This Court held that the provisions of O. 13 R. 2 CPC are discretionary. Vexatious and dilatory applications cannot be allowed. Good cause should be shown for the delay. It was the duty of the Court to have seen as to whether good cause has or has not been shown. The petitioner defendant in his application alleged that the document could not be filed 'SAHAWAN'. The Court took it to be a good cause. The order allowing or rejecting an application under Order 13 R. 2 CPC appears to be a purely interlocutory order. It cannot be said to be an order within the term 'case decided' and hence no revision lies. Even if for the sake of argument, it is taken that it amounts to a case decided in that case too it cannot be said that injustice will be caused if the order is allowed to stand because the revisionist will have an opportunity to meet the document. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the revision petition. It is summarily dismissed.