B. A. Khan ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed money Suit No. 499/1996 against respondent No. 2 ants to bring on record the specimen signature card to prove her signatures for this petitioner accordingly filed an application under Order 13, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, which was rejected by impugned order on the ground that the application was silent about the cause or the reason which had prevented it from producing the card before settlement of issues, documents. ( 2 ) PETITIONER s case is that respondent had admitted her signatures on the cheques in her written statement and therefore, no need was felt to bring the specimen signature card on record at the relevant time of filing of documents. But when Bank s request to prove this card was turned down while leading evidence, it was constrained to file an application for this purpose. ( 3 ) THE case of respondent No. 2 is that there was not even a whisper why this card was not filed alongwith other documents and before the settlement of issues as envisaged by Order 13, Rule 1. It is also denied that she had admitted her signatures on the cheques issued in her name. She also alleges that Bank had fabricated the documents including the card when she had no knowledge of any such account having been opened in her name being an illiterate lady. She also questions the maintainability of this revision petition and relies upon AIR 1971 SC 2324 , AIR 1997 SC 3572 and 82 (1991) DLT 530 in support. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute about legal proposition advanced on either side and all that remained to be seen was whether the card was liable to be brought on record. Rule 1 of Order 13 requires the parties to file all documents in their custody and possession on which they placed reliance at the time of filing of their pleadings and in any case prior to the settlement of issues. Rule 2, however, provides an exception for permitting a document to be received even at a subsequent stage, if good cause was shown to the Court for its non-production. Rule 2, however, provides an exception for permitting a document to be received even at a subsequent stage, if good cause was shown to the Court for its non-production. It is also well settled that Court could allow documents to be produced at any stage for the sake of fair trial and justice, and that procedural law was not to be taken as a resistant in the administration of justice as held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Shyam Lal Murari, (1976) 1 SCC 719 because the Courts were required to do justice and not to be guided by technicalities. ( 5 ) VIEW thus, I do not see any reason why petitioner s prayer for bringing the specimen signature card should have been disallowed. After all it was an official document which could have facilitate a fair trial and just restitution of the dispute between the parties. Moreover, petitioner s explanation that card could not be produced before settlement of issues because respondent No. 2 had impliedly admitted her signatures on the cheques in the written statement constituted plausible explanation and ought to have been accepted as good reason as the suit was still at evidence stage and no prejudice was likely to be caused to respondents. In case respondent No. 2 was convinced of merit of her claim that she had nothing to do with the transaction or that the specimen signature card was fabricated by the Bank, she could prove her point even after card was brought on record. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order and direct that disputed specimen signature card be brought on the record of suit file.