1. This revision petition which is directed against the order dated: 29-06-1996 passed by the IV Addl. District Judge, Srinagar in COS No. 36 of 22-03-1994, arises out of the circumstances which are summarised as under: 2. The petitioner-plaintiff came to institute suit for recovery of Rs. 29615/- before this court which came to be transferred to the Court of IV Addl. District Judge, Srinagar for disposal under law, where it came to be registered and proceedings were commenced. The respondent during the course of proceedings were summoned but they choose to remain absent as a result of which the case came to be set ex-parte against them on 15-04-1994. In a bid to substantiate its case, the plaintiff besides its proprietor Abdul RehmanReshi has examined couple of witnesses in ex-parte and the case came to be closed for the evidence of the plaintiff and adjourned for ex-parte arguments. It is after the case was adjourned for the ex-parte arguments, the plaintiff preferred an application dated: 14-11-1995 for leave to produce the statement of accounts and the account books in original which came to be supplemented by another application filed on 08-04-1996. The learned trial court by virtue of impugned order came to dismiss the said application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up in revision before this court wherein the order impugned is assailed on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity in rejecting the application. 3. I have heard Mr. B.A. Rather, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. The petition in question through the medium of which the petitioner has sought leave to produce the documents is ostensibly under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. which reads as under: - No documentary evidence in the possession and power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirement of rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof and the court receiving such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing.� 4. The object of this rule is not to penalise the party but to secure a fair trial of the case, where this rule is invoked with a malafide intention to cause delay or move is vexatious, the cause cannot be said good cause to the satisfaction of the court and the Court will not exercise its discretion of granting the leave but where the document is vital and above suspicion and would assist the court in coming to a decision, such document will be allowed. Having regard to this law, in the present case, the basis of the suit is the statement of account from 1988 to 1991 showing the details of the accounts between the parties the copies of the said statement are already on file and appear to have been filed along with the plaint. Therefore, this cannot be said that the original books of accounts and the statement of account have been concocted or fabricated at a later stage. Besides this document, that is to say, the copy of statement of account on the file can be proved only by the production of the original books of accounts. Therefore, the trial court was not justified in refusing to allow the relevant original books of account and the statement of account (the copy of which is already indicated is on record) simply because it has not been produced at the first hearing of the suit. 5. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated: 29-06-1996 is set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff is allowed to bring the said documents on record and also to produce further proof evidence in support thereof under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The trial court file be returned together with a copy of this order where the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is directed to cause the appearance of the petitioner on 17-11-2001.