JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is unfortunate that the learned District Judge has rejected an application filed by the present petitioner, who was the respondent in appeal filed by the present respondents. 3. The present petitioner filed an application u/O. 41 Rule 27 of CPC for producing the material documents on record. That application was rejected only on the ground of delay and lurches. 4. When the case is arising out of the Payment of Wages Act, and when the person is an employee, then the Court should not have taken such a rigid and technical stand for dismissing such application on the ground of delay and lurches only. They were important documents, and required to be taken on record for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. By not exercising the discretion vested in it, the lower appellate Court has committed jurisdictional error, and therefore, the impugned order dated 10.1.1994 is set-aside. The application filed by the present petitioner u/O. 41 R. 27 of CPC is granted. 5. Now the lower appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal after taking those documents on record, and decide the appeal in accordance with law.Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.Revision Allowed. *******