Honble YAMIN, J.–Application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was disallowed by the trial Court by order dated 19.5.98, hence this revision. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. (3). Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the document was very much relevant being a copy of the written statement filed by the defendant in another case where the plea was taken that the Tehsildar was not authorised to allot the land. According to him in the present case the document is very relevant and should have been allowed to be taken on record. (4). On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition tooth and nail. (5). I have considered the rival contentions. Counsel for the petitioners cited Gyaniram and another vs. Gulab Chand (1), in which it was observed that in admitting documents produced at a stage later than the first hearing the Court should be liberal and should not exclude documents which are above suspicion, if they are necessary for the proper decision of the case. He also relied on Kishan Singh & Ors. vs. Birbal Ram (2), in which it has been observed that when the document is necessary for disposal of case, court must admit it even at stage of argument. (6). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the revision was not maintainable and cited Jugjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. and etc. vs. Union of Indian and etc. (3). But in view of Division Bench Judgment in Bharosilal and another vs. Moolchand (4), the revision is maintainable. In another Division Bench Judgment rendered in Chouth Mal vs. Fazal Hussain (5), the case of Jugjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. (supra) was considered in which it was held that revision will lie against an order by which the subordinate court has refused documentary evidence under Or- der 13 Rule 2 CPC notwithstanding that good cause has been shown for late production and the document is of vital and material importance. Therefore, I have to see the case on its own merits. The requirement under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is that the party should show a good cause to the satisfaction of the Court for non production of the document. The document has a bearing on the case and good cause was shown before the trial Court. Therefore, I have to see the case on its own merits. The requirement under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is that the party should show a good cause to the satisfaction of the Court for non production of the document. The document has a bearing on the case and good cause was shown before the trial Court. The trial Court has not correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him and has committed material irregularity in not allowing the document to be taken on record. (7). Hence, I interfere in the order of trial Court under Sec. 115 CPC and allow this revision petition and set aside the order of trial Court. No orders as to costs.