JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J. (Oral): 1. The petitioner who is defendant in the court below is aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.1998 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Rohru, whereby , her application made under order 13 rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, for production of documents has been refused. 2. Vide application made under Order 13 rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner-defendant had sought the production of documents in support n of the plea raised by her with regard to the private partition. While seeking \ the necessary leave it has been averred by the petitioner-defendant that such documents could not be placed on the record of the case in terms of Rule 1 of Order 13, Code of Civil Procedure, due to a bonafide mistake of her previous counsel. 3. The learned Sub Judge proceeded to dismiss the application simply on the ground that the averments made in the application did not mention that the mistake for non-production of the documents earlier was of bonafide nature. This observation of the learned Sub Judge on the face of it, is wrong and based on non-appreciation of the averments made in the application wherein it has been specifically averred that the documents could not be produced due to the bonafide mistake on the part of the previous counsel of the petitioner-defendant. 4. Under Rule 2 of order 13, Code of Civil procedure, the court has ample power to permit the production of the documents at a subsequent stage. In so far as the plaintiffs-respondents are concerned, they can be very well compensated by costs. 5. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4.5.1998 of the learned Sub Judge-(2), Rohru, is set aside and the application made by the petitioner-defendant under Order 13 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, is allowed and she is permitted to place on the record the documents, as prayed, on payment of costs of Rs. 550/-.