JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) (West) Jaipur City in civil suit No. 370/92, whereby plaintiffs (respondent) application under order 13 Rule 2 CPC was allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. 2. The plaintiff company (respondent) instituted suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant (petitioner). After framing of the issues, the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 7.9.98. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 24.11.99 fixing the case for defendants evidence on 16.12.99 and 17.12.99 but defendant moved application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC which was allowed on 17.12.99 and the statement of defendant was recorded on 17.12.99, where after the proceedings continued for recording of defendant's evidence till it was closed on 30.3.2000 when it was fixed for plaintiff's evidence in rebuttal on 5.4.2000. On that day the plaintiff moved to application under order 13 Rule 2 CPC whereby the plaintiff sought to file a copy of notice dated 5.3.80 with its postal acknowledgment receipt dated 18.3.90, which is alleged to have been signed by father of the defendant. This application was opposed by the defendant before the trial court. However, the trial court allowed this plaintiff's application by the impugned order. Hence this revision petition. 3. Shri Praveen Jain, learned counsel for the defendant contended that the suit has been pending since 1992 inasmuch as the documents sought to be produced in evidence are of the year 1980 but they are sought to be produced after 20 years without there being pleaded either in the present eviction proceeding or in three suits previously filed and in these circumstances the documents in question are not relevant. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having considered the contention and perused the impugned order, prima facie, I am of the opinion that what is required under Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC is that the party, for justifiable reasons, could not have produced earlier the documents before or at settlement of issues as is required under Rule 1 of order 13, CPC, but has sought its production at the latter stage, and if a good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the trial court for non-production of the document at earlier stage, then the court is within its jurisdiction for receiving any such evidence at later stage. in my considered view, once the discretion is vested in the court under Rule 2 of order 13 CPC to receive at subsequent stage any document which though in possession or power of any party but could not have been produced at earlier stage of settlement of issues and good cause is shown for its non-production then production of document at belated stage cannot be declined merely on the ground that there was no mention either in earlier suit or subsequent suit proceedings or that the document is an old. A good cause has been shown by the plaintiff for non-production of the document in the application moved under order 13 Rule 2 CPC, to which the trial court has satisfied therefore it allowed the application subject to the costs. I do not find any error of jurisdiction or illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. Thus, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. As a result of the discussion made above, this civil revision petition is dismissed in limine. The impugned order dated 10/4/2000 of the trial court whereby application of plaintiff respondent under order 13 Rule 2 CPC has been allowed, is upheld. However, since the proceedings in the suit No. 376/92 are at fag end, the trial court is directed to exepeditiously decide the suit but not beyond three months from the receipt of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith.Revision Dismissed. *******