H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner. This revision arises from the order dated 9-12-1993, passed in Original Suit No. 92 of 1992, rejecting the application made by the defendant namely LA. No. ( 2 ) THE Trial Court rejected the application taking the view that the stage of framing issues has finished. The evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses has already been recorded and defendants evidence is to reopen. But if the documents are allowed to be filed automatically, plaintiff will not have opportunity to meet those documents. He further found that the defendant 1 has not assigned or stated or disclosed any good or sufficient cause for not producing the said documents at the stage of rule 1 of Order 13, Civil Procedure Code. With these observations and finding, the Trial Court rejected the application and so the defendant has come up in revision. ( 3 ) WITHOUT going into the question whether the order amounts to case decided or not, even if I for a moment take without recording any finding, that the order amounts to case decided, even then, in my opinion revision is misconceived and not maintainable. Per se the Court below has recorded the finding that no good or sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the documents at the proper stage. This is a finding of fact. Apart from that Order 13, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, provides that all the documents or documentary evidence of every description in possession of the party and which the party desires to rely on should be filed on or before the settlement of issues. Rule 2 mandates that no documentary evidence in possession or power of the party which should have been filed or produced, but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1, shall be received at subsequent stage of the proceedings. This Rule 2 puts a bar by giving a negative mandate, directing the Court that it shall not admit any documentary evidence which has been in possession of a party or power of the party, but which has not been produced as required by Rule 1, at any stage subsequent to the stage of framing of the issues. No doubt this rider can only be opened, if a good cause is shown for non-production thereof. No doubt this rider can only be opened, if a good cause is shown for non-production thereof. Whether good cause has been shown, is something within the Court's jurisdiction to decide. If the Court received any such documentary evidence, after the stage of Rule 1 proceedings or framing of the issues, the Court shall also record the reasons for taking that document on record as well as indicating that sufficient good cause has been shown. ( 4 ) IN the present case Trial Court has opined that no good cause has been shown or established. In view of this finding, the rider against the power of the Court to admit document at the stage subsequent to the framing of issues, cannot be said to have been removed and in this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Court below in rejecting the application did not commit any jurisdictional error. Learned Counsel for the defendant contended that the Court may exercise its inherent powers and admit document on payment of cost, because documents could not be produced due to inadvertence. I am unable to accept this contention. Inherent powers are ordinarily not to be exercised so as to render any provision of the Code nugatory. No doubt inherent powers of the Court are not circumscribed or controlled or otherwise affected by any provision of the Code. But even then it has to be taken note of it is only in the case of interest of justice to both the parties of the case, the powers may be exercised. Here if the document is accepted on payment of cost and then plaintiff is again given opportunity to file documents, there will not be an end to it instead it will be an act tantamount to nullifying the requirements of law. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, this Court cannot exercise its in herent powers. Every party is required to be vigilant in the conduct of the case and is required to produce documents which are necessary for the decision of the case at the proper stage. Any way the order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error. The revision as such is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .