Honble YADAV, J.–Heard learned counsel for Revisionist. (2). Perused the order impugned dated 5.11.98 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application moved by the plaintiff- revisionist under O.13 R.2, CPC refusing to receive documentary evidence produced by her after framing of issues. (3). In the present revision petition, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why the instant revision petition should not be disposed off at admission stag vide order dated 4.2.99. Notices were made returnable within four weeks from the date of its issuance. (4). From perusal of record, it is proved that notices are duly served upon the respondents. Inspite of due service neither respondent No.1 and 2 are present personally in court nor they have engaged any counsel to do pairvi on their behalf. In view of the aforesaid facts, I would like to finally dispose of this revision petition at admission stage. (5). From perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the plaintiff-revisio- nist has shown good cause for non-production of documents yet the learned trial court refused to receive the aforesaid documents on irrelevant consideration. (6). It was stated by the plaintiff-revisionist in her application moved under Order13, Rule 2, C.P.C. that after filing of the suit, an application was moved before the learned trial court to requisition the file from the office of the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Rajsamand, which was refused with a direction to produce certified copies of the relevant documents. After direction of the learned trial court, the plaintiff-revisionist applied for certified copies of the relevant documents in the office of Mining Engineer. After obtaining the certified copies of the documents from the office of Mining Engineer submitted the same before the lear- ned trial court. The plaintiff-revisionist stated that inadvertantly, the documents could not be brought from Delhi to Rajsamand. After obtaining the certified copies of the documents from the office of Mining Engineer submitted the same before the lear- ned trial court. The plaintiff-revisionist stated that inadvertantly, the documents could not be brought from Delhi to Rajsamand. The plaintiff-revisionist made a search and when it could not be traced at her residence in Rajsamand then she made search at her another residence in Delhi where the documents were found and after getting those documents, they were sought to be filed before the learned trial court along with an application under Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C. In my considered opinion, the cause shown by the plaintiff-revisionist was sufficient and learned trial ought to have received documentary evidence under Order 13, Rule 2 C.P.C. but the learned trial court has illegally refused to receive those documents, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court deserves to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and the order dated 5.11.98 passed by the learned trial court is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned trial court to receive documentary evidence which was sought to be filed by the plaintiff-revisionist before him under O. 13, R. 2, CPC subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost. Cost of this revision petition is made easy.