Honble JAIN, J. – The question for determination in this revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioner is whether the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur has erroneously decided the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under O.XII, r. 3A C.P.C. (2). The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition may brie fly be stated as follows : (3). The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the disputed premises mainly on the ground of sub-letting of the suit-premises of the defendants-non- petitioners No. 2 and 3 to the petitioner-defendant No. 3. The defendant-petitioner resisted the suit. From the proceedings of the suit, the petitioner came across a very important document viz., an affidavit filed by the plaintiff in which he admitted that the premises in question were let out to the father and brother of Balchand. That document was relevant and crucial for deciding the controversy of the parties. The defendant- petitioner, therefore, moved an application under O.XIII, r. 2 CPC and the same was allowed by the lear- ned trial court on payment of costs. (4). However, inadvertently no order was passed regarding the proof of above document. The defendant wanted an opportunity to prove the above document but before doing so, he wanted to obtain admission and denial of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and despite many requests, the plaintiff avoided the same. (5). The defendant, therefore, moved an application before the court under O.12 rr. 2, 2A and 3A CPC requesting the court to call upon the plaintiff to admit the above document after making an enquiry from the plaintiff whether the plaintiff admits or refuses or neglects to admit such document. The above application was dismissed by the learned trial court. (6). I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the non-petitioners and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (7). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the whole purpose of bringing the above important document on record will be frustrated if the defendant is not allowed to prove the document. Before the defendant decides whether to lead evidence or not, it was imperative for the plaintiff to admit or deny the above document. The defendant made efforts to get admission or denial of the plaintiff but the latter avoided the same. Before the defendant decides whether to lead evidence or not, it was imperative for the plaintiff to admit or deny the above document. The defendant made efforts to get admission or denial of the plaintiff but the latter avoided the same. The defendant was, therefore, compelled to move the above application. According to the learned counsel, the learned Additional Civil Judge has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the above application and thereby denied the defendant the advantage of bringing the above document on record in asmush as if the document is not pro- ved substantial injustice will be caused. (8). The learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that initially under r.18 of the General Rules (Civil), it was the duty of the defendant to obtain admission and denial of the plaintiff before the document was produced in the court. Be that as it may, the application of the defendant was not maintainable be- cause the court was having jurisdiction to entertain the same during any stage of the proceedings but since the present suit has been fixed for judgment after hearing arguments of the parties, the learned trial court has not committed any error. In this connection, he has derived support from Raj Kumar Rajmani vs. Union Bank of India and Anr. (1). (9). I have considered the rival submission made at the bar. It may be stated here that the present case was posted for judgment and arguments of the plaintiff were heard and the defendant was given an opportunity to advance his arguments. Eventually, the case was concluded and only the judgment was to be pronounced. Similarly in Raj Kumar Rajmanis case(supra), the case was fixed for the pronoun- cement of the judgment and, therefore, it was held that the application under O.13, r.2 CPC is not maintainable as no proceedings are pending. R.3-A of O.XII C.P.S. reads as under : "3-A. Power of court to record admission. Similarly in Raj Kumar Rajmanis case(supra), the case was fixed for the pronoun- cement of the judgment and, therefore, it was held that the application under O.13, r.2 CPC is not maintainable as no proceedings are pending. R.3-A of O.XII C.P.S. reads as under : "3-A. Power of court to record admission. Notwithstanding that no notice to admit documents has been given under r.2, the court may at any stage of the proceedings before it, of its own motion, call upon any party to admit any document and shall in such a case record whether the party admits or refuses or neglects to admit such document." Since the present case was posted for judgment after conclusion of final argu- ments and, therefore, it cannot be said that any proceedings were pending before the Court and hence, it cannot be said that the defendant filed the above application at any stage of the proceedings. (11). In this view of the matter, the learned Addl. Civil Judge has not committed any jurisdictional error. Thus, no interference can be made in this revision pe- tition. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.