JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order dated 3-8-1994 passed by Shri Harphool Singh Pilania, Civil Judge, Sardarshahar in Civil Original Suit No. 146/93 whereby the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for seeking permission for late production of documents under Order 13, Rule 2 C.P.C. was rejected. 2. Facts, in so far as they are material for the decision of this petition, are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 7-10-1978 allegedly executed by defendant-non-petitioner in his favour and also obtained an advance of Rs. 3,000/-. It was averred that the defendant did not carry out the contractual obligations in respect of the above agreement. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit seeking specific performance of the contract. The non-petitioner-defendant resisted the suit on the ground of total denial. It was also alleged that the so called agreement dated 7-10-1978 was forged. Issues were framed which relate to the execution of the document and non-compliance thereof by the defendant. 3. By moving the above application under Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C., the plaintiff wanted permission of the Court to produce several documents, reference whereof, has been made in the impugned order. The Court found that the documents sought to be produced were not relevant. Hence, the application was dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the instant petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable because it has been preferred against an order passed under Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C. Learned Counsel has referred to the following decisions:- Harakchand v. State of Raj 1970 Raj LW 320 ; Radheshyam v. Nathuram, AIR 1980 Raj 111 and Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Raj 20 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this important question of law fell for determination before the D.B. of this Court in Bharosilal v. Mool Chand (1991) 1 Rajasthan LR 186 and Municipal Council v. Gokulchand, (1987) 2 Rajasthan LR 248. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this important question of law fell for determination before the D.B. of this Court in Bharosilal v. Mool Chand (1991) 1 Rajasthan LR 186 and Municipal Council v. Gokulchand, (1987) 2 Rajasthan LR 248. 6. I need not discuss the above cited case law in detail because in Bharosilal v. Mool Chand's case, all the authorities were considered and answering point No. 2 which was referred by the learned single Judge, it was held that revision would lie against an order by which the subordinate Court has refused to accept the documentary evidence under Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C. I, therefore, find no substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the non-1 petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence of the parties has yet to be taken. The plaintiff, therefore, sought to produce the above documents even before the evidence of any party started. The documents produced are genuine and mostly are certified copies of the record of the Court. He submitted that in the written statement, the defendant made serious allegations against the plaintiff that he is in the habit of forging document etc. In order to rebut the same, the reception of these documents is necessary. He also emphasised that the statement of Shri Manikchand recorded by the court on 5-10-83 is absolutely necessary because he has stated many relevant matters about the transactions in question. He has expired. 8. learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that all the documents are absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issues framed in the case. The statement of Shri Manikchand was recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. on the complaint filed under Section 500,1. P.C. It was during inquiry that the above statement was recorded. The above witness was not subjected to cross-examination. Other documents also do not even remotely relate to the just decision of any of the issues framed on the pleadings of the parties. 9. I have considered the arguments. It may be stated that the object of Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C. is to prevent belated production of documents so that it may not cause prejudice to the defendant. Other documents also do not even remotely relate to the just decision of any of the issues framed on the pleadings of the parties. 9. I have considered the arguments. It may be stated that the object of Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C. is to prevent belated production of documents so that it may not cause prejudice to the defendant. However, the rule clearly invests the Court with the power or discretion to allow production of documents at a later stage if it is satisfied that good cause is shown to its satisfaction. The other important factor relevant for deciding the fact of such application is that the documents sought to be produced must be relevant for deciding the issues between the parties. In the present case, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show how the above documents were relevant for the just and correct decision of the issues framed in the case. The petitioner is only demonstrating oversensitiveness when it was submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff wants to rebut the allegations of forgery etc. made by the defendant against the plaintiff. The above conflict of personalities is not the subject matter of the present suit. The statement of Shri Manikchand was recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. during the inquiry on a complaint filed under Section 500,1.P.C. Such a statement was not subjected to cross-examination and as such is not admissible in evidence. 10. For the above reasons, I find no substance in the petition and it is hereby dismissed with costs.Revision dismissed. *******