JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-tenant has filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 6-1-96 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 15/94 whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this application may be stated as follows. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed the present suit for ejectment and recovery of arriers of rent in respect of an open piece of land, bearing No. 44 in Artison Colony, Masuria, Jodhpur. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant-petitioner was indicated as a tenant in the year 1975 at a monthly rent of Rupees 80/-. The ejectment of the petitioner-defendant was sought on ground of personal necessity. The plaintiff wants to construct a residential building over the above plot. The plaintiff further stated that at present he is residing in the house of Shri Ranglal Bargurjar. The defendant denied the allegations and contested the suit. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has got another plot bearing No. 45 in his possession, on which a house has already been constructed. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 7-3-95. The case was fixed for evidence of the defendant on 11-4-95. On 4-5-95, the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment. The above amendment was rejected, but, was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- vide order dated 13-9-95. It may be stated that the defendant found himself unable to pay the above cost. Hence regarding which the conditional permission was allowed to the defendant could not be carried out. By moving the application under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C., the defendant sought to produce two documents. The first document is the certified copy of the ration card of the plaintiff. According to this ration card, the plaintiff is residing at Rajendra Marg, Masuria, Jodhpur. The another document was a registered letter bearing endorsement of the postman to the effect that the plaintiff had left the above address. By proving these two documents, the defendant wants to prove that no bona fide personal necessity exists for the plaintiff inasmuch as he has changed the residence. 3. The another document was a registered letter bearing endorsement of the postman to the effect that the plaintiff had left the above address. By proving these two documents, the defendant wants to prove that no bona fide personal necessity exists for the plaintiff inasmuch as he has changed the residence. 3. The learned trial Court considered the application and rejected the same on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant were neither relevant nor bonafide. He also made a strong observation that the defendant cannot participate in the proceedings of the suit till he paid cost of Rs. 2,000/- as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has very powerfully contended that the two documents sought to be produced by the defendant-petitioner were very relevant for deciding the issue regarding bona fide necessity. Both the documents are genuine. The defendant could only obtain copy of the ration card late and as soon as he obtained the same it was produced. The letter also contains the endorsement of the post-man which was made in the ordinary course of business. If these two documents are allowed to be produced, the case of the defendant would be strengthened to show that the plaintiff has changed the place of residence and he is in no more requirement of constructing a new house at the disputed plot. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Shri Punjab Hotel v. Shri Anil Kumar and another ( 1982 RLR 983 ) and Abdul Rehman v. Maheshwari Panchayat, Kota (1994 (3) WLC (Raj) 695). 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the order of the learned trial Court. He has alleged that the defendant in order to delay the trial of the suit has been resorting to such sort of applications. Previously he moved an application seeking amendment which was allowed by this Court on payment of cost. The defendant showed no interest in carrying out the amendment and avoided the same on the ground that he was very poor and could not afford to part with Rs. 2,000/-. While opposing the application, the plaintiff stated that the ration card was old one. Regarding the registered letter, the plaintiff categorically alleged that the defendant fraudulently obtained report from the postman in order to create a ground in his favour. 2,000/-. While opposing the application, the plaintiff stated that the ration card was old one. Regarding the registered letter, the plaintiff categorically alleged that the defendant fraudulently obtained report from the postman in order to create a ground in his favour. The only intention of the defendant in moving the above application was to delay. 6. I have considered the rival arguments. The object of the Order 13 Rule 2 is merely to prevent late production of documents. How- ever, the provision contained in Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. clothes the Court with discretion to allow production of documents if it is satisfied that good cause is shown to its satisfaction for their late production. While exercising the powers under Order 13 Rule 2, the Court examines the matter with a judicial mind taking into consideration, the nature of the suit, the conduct of the parties, the hardship which may cause to the parties if the documents are not allowed to be produced at that later stage. 7. A perusal of the order shows that the defendant-petitioner previously moved an application seeking amendment in the pleading. He pursued the matter upto the High Court and when obtained a favourable order showed in difference on the ground that he was unable to pay the cost imposed by the High Court. I am not convinced with the explanation furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the same litigant who was feeling difficulty in parting the cost imposed by the High Court again knocked at the door of the High Court by filing this petition. Be that as it may, this shows that the defendant has been consistently filing interlocutory applications which tend to delay the proceedings of the case. The two documents regarding which this application was moved are not important. The plaintiff has stated that ration card was old one and it does not correctly depict his correct address. Similarly, the letter containing the endorsement of the post-man is not conclusive proof of the fact that the plaintiff has changed the residence. The plaintiff has made a serious allegation against the defendant that he prepared this document in collusion with the postman. 8. The learned trial Court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. There is no ground for interference. 9. The plaintiff has made a serious allegation against the defendant that he prepared this document in collusion with the postman. 8. The learned trial Court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. There is no ground for interference. 9. I, therefore, find no force in the petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******