H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application arises from the order dated 7-2-1998 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the applicant's application under order 13, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC. Trial Court has opined that the applicant has not been able to explain the delay and has not been able to give any satisfactory reason why he could not at stage Order 13, Rule 1 of the CPC produce the document. The plaintiff has come up in revision under Section 115 of the CPC. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri S. B. Shahapur, learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist contended that the Court below illegally refused to admit the document and really failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested. Prima facie, argument does not appear to be of any substance. The Trial Court has rejected the application with the observation,"plaintiff relied the same on this document, he ought to have file this document along with suit, suit is filed in the year 1994, but he has not filed said document, when he came to file the said document in the year 1998, Court has framed the issue on 24-3-1997 he has not filed any reasons stated by the petitioner in his affidavit and he has not stated satisfactory reasons for the delay in production of documents. He has nowhere stated or pleaded in his plaint that there is marriage card and there is no averments regarding the existence of this document produced by the petitioner at later stage cannot be allowed. Hence it deserves to be dismissed". ( 4 ) ORDER 13, Rule 1 provides that,"rule 1. Documentary evidence to be produced, (at or before the settlement of issues ). (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced at or before the settlement of issues". Rule 2 deals with the effect of non-production of documents. Rule 2 deals with the effect of non-production of documents. It reads," (1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents, (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory". ( 5 ) A reading of Rules 1 and 2 clearly provide that party has to provid all documents in his possession and on which he intends to rely before framing of issues. Rule 2 debars the Court from receiving any document in possession of the party which the party should have produced at the stage of Rule 1 of Order 13. It is only in cases where good reason in non-production of the documentary evidence is shown, the Court may receive the same, but must record the reasons. So a reading of this clause per se reveals that there is a clear bar on production and reciving of documentary evidence after the framing of issues. The bar can be removed only if the party shows the good cause for failure of production thereof. The Trial Court in this connection, considered the question and recorded the finding that the plaintiff failed to furnish any sufficient in good cause for not filing the document, which the plaintiff wanted to file by way of this application. Therefore, bar against the exercise of jurisdction continued and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the document subsequently filed. Therefore, in my opinion, the order prima facie appears not to suffer from any jurisdictional error. Revision is dismissed. --- *** --- .