JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The trial Court allowed the application of plaintiffs u/O. 13 R. 2, CPC by the impugned order dated 17.10.1998 against which this revision has been preferred by defendants-petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents were not relevant, that they were within the knowledge of the respondent when plaint was filed, that the plaintiffs should first amend the suit and then only can submit the two patlas. He has prayed that trial Court has committed material irregularity by allowing the application. Reliance has been placed by him on Jaya Sen v. Sujit Kumar Sarkar, AIR 1988 Calcutta page 288 in which it was observed that parties are bound by their pleadings. He has also relied on Md. Yunus v. Nabi Hossain, AIR 1982 Calcutta page 488 in which it was observed that evidence cannot be allowed to be led on point not made out in the plaint. At the outset it may be said that these citations are irrelevant for the purpose of the decision of this revision petition because the question about allowing or disallowing the application u/O. 13 R. 2 CPC was not at issue in both of them. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the party who puts application has only to show a good cause to the satisfaction of the Court for non production of the documents. According to him there is affidavit of the plaintiffs on the point that the documents were not earlier available and as soon as party was able to lay hands upon them the same were produced before the trial Court. According to him they are very relevant in the suit. The pattas relate to the Year 1923-24 and Year 1941-42 and the third document is the judgment of criminal Court dated 8.4.1996. They cannot be said to he forged one. They are genuine. The party which has produced them has shown the good cause before the trial Court. The documents were allowed on the cost of Rs. 200/-. 5. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in allowing the application by the trial Court. This revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******