JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner (defendant-appellant) filed a Civil Regular Appeal against the judgment & decree dated 5.1.1997 of the trial Court which relates to his eviction from the suit premises which was under his tenancy. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to file additional documents such as Money Order Coupon, Notice of Advocate by which he sought information from the plaintiff with regard to his bank account and challan receipts by which the rent for the disputed period had been deposited under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Rent Control & Eviction) Act, 1950 for short 'the Act of 1950'. The petitioner submitted that these documents could not be submitted earlier before the trial Court notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence since they were in possession of another advocate who had deposited the rent in the Court and since these documents had been given by the previous counsel for the petitioner only after passing of the judgment & decree by the trial Court, hence he could not produce the same earlier and for which now he is seeking the permission of the First Appellate Court to adduce the same by way of his evidence. The application was contested by the non-petitioner by filing the reply and the trial Court after hearing the parties, partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 10.7.1997 by permitting the challan receipts for the period in dispute i.e. 15.5.1988 to 14.5.1989 to be produced while remaining documents were disallowed. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the petitioner has come up by way of present revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as findings recorded by the trial Court. Prima-facie, I am of the considered view that in exercise of its powers under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before allowing the application for permission to adduce the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, the Court has also to examine the relevancy of the documents. It is not necessary that every document whether relevant or not relevant to the case should be permitted to be placed on the record. It is not necessary that every document whether relevant or not relevant to the case should be permitted to be placed on the record. The cause must be substantial and just and should be directly related to the ends of justice since otherwise it will be empty formality and an exercise in futility if several documents sought for by the aggrieved party are allowed to be produced in evidence even at the appellate stage. In my view, the trial Court has given justifiable reasons for not permitting the Money Order Coupons and notice served on the petitioner (defendant) by the non-petitioner (plaintiff) in view of the specific finding recorded by the trial Court. The eviction suit was filed on two grounds, (A) default in payment of rent & (B) personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff-landlord. 3. On the question of default the trial Court had specifically framed the following question : "Whether the defendant has committed default by not tendering the rent to the plaintiff-landlord for the period from 15.5.1988 to 14.3.1989 i.e. for a period of 10 months and if so, to what effect ?" 4. In this regard, the petitioner-defendant had contended before the trial Court that though he had sent the rent for the period in dispute through money order but since its acceptance was refused by the plaintiff-landlord, he had in accordance with the provisions of Section 19-A of the Act of 1950 deposited the same with the trial Court and challan receipts depositing the rent, copy of notice dated 12.9.1985 and registered A.D. have also been tendered by the petitioner. 5. On the question of default in payment of rent, the finding of the trial Court is to the effect that if the petitioner has in compliance of the provisions of Section 19-A of the Act of 1950 deposited the rent for the period in dispute, it will have a direct bearing on the case and there is no reason to disbelieve the documentary evidence by way of receipts etc. which is a part of the record of the Court and it cannot be assumed that they are fake or false. 6. The documents for which the permission was sought by the petitioner is only confined to the above referred documents to discharge the onus that there was no default on his part in payment of rent for the period in dispute. 6. The documents for which the permission was sought by the petitioner is only confined to the above referred documents to discharge the onus that there was no default on his part in payment of rent for the period in dispute. It is not the case of the petitioner that the documents for which he had sought the permission of the trial Court are those documents in absence of which the Court is either unable to decide the matter or precluded from deciding the same since the evidence relating to the deposit of rent for the period in dispute are challan receipts for the period 15.5.1988 to 14.5.1989 for which the evidence by way of deposit is already on the record of the trial Court. 7. In view of above circumstances, the trial Court permitted the documentary evidence by way of challan receipts to be taken on record for the period in dispute viz. 15.5.1988 to 14.5.1989. With regard to other documents namely, money order coupons and legal notice sent through counsel, the trial Court did not find its relevancy. In my view, the trial Court has not committed any illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error in partly allowing the petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 8. Hence, the impugned-order dated 10.7.1997 passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No. 8/97 does not call for any interference being not open to challenge. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed being not maintainable.Revision Dismissed. *******