S. N. Kapoor ( 1 ) HEARD the parties counsel. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that a document which was sought to be filed was reply to the notice sent by the respondent in response to notice of termination of tenancy. As such, it is a very material document and the learned Trial Court should have allowed filing of the document and should have granted opportunity to prove it in evidence. It is submitted that the respondents could also be given an opportunity to lead evidence by proving the document. The respondents could also be compensated by payment of cost. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the revision petition is not maintainable for rejection of an application under order 13 (2) does not relate to the point of jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. It relates to the question of the fact and at the same time, a question of law also, in a given case. But, in any case, it does not relate to the question of jurisdiction. The learned Trial Court could entertain the application in the given circumstances and could reject the same as well. Thus, the Trial Court has acted within its jurisdiction. No material irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order. In such a situation, this Court should not interfere in revisional jurisdiction, especially after both the parties have led and closed their evidence and the matter is listed for final arguments. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the parties counsel, it appears desirable to note the observations made by the learned trial Court in para 6. IN the present case the document which the applicant want to bring on record is of the year 1988 and it is not the case of the applicant that he was not in a possession of this document at the time of filing of the suit or at the time of framing of the issues. No reason has been given as to why this document was not produced in accordance with order 13 Rule 1 CPC. The application simply states that omission took place in failure to file the said document on record is only an act of inadvertence. No reason has been given as to why this document was not produced in accordance with order 13 Rule 1 CPC. The application simply states that omission took place in failure to file the said document on record is only an act of inadvertence. However, this ground by itself is not a justifiable ground; there has to be a specific reason which could amount to a good cause which unabled the applicant to produce the document earlier. In the present case the applicant has failed to show a good cause for non-production of this document as per the requirement of Rule 1 Order 13 CPC. Therefore, the application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is hereby dismissed. ( 5 ) IT is apparent from the above that there are appropriate reasons not to accept the application for no satisfactory reason has been given as to why the document could not be filed for the document was in custody of the petitioner and it is dated 10/06/1988. Consequently, it does not appear plausible to say that there is any material irregularity or illegality. ( 6 ) AS regards preliminary objection, learned counsel for the respondent REFERRED TO Radhey Shyam vs. Nathuram AIR 1980 Rajasthan 111 which is based on a judgment of a Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Harakchand vs. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Raj. LW 320. wherein the following observations were made:- ". . . . WHETHER a particular evidence was admissible according to law or not is a question of law which the Trial court was entitled to decide and if any error has been committed in deciding that question, it dan not be said that such error was in any way an error in the manner of exercise of jurisdiction. " ( 7 ) IN Radhey Shyam vs. Nathuram (Supra), judgment in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule ( AIR 1966 SC 153 ) was also referred TO and the scope of Sec. 115 was considered by the Supreme Court in that case in following words:- "the construction of a decree like the construction of a document of title is no doubt a point of law. Even so, it can not be held to justify the exercise of the High Court s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the code because it has no relation to the jurisdiction of the Court. Even so, it can not be held to justify the exercise of the High Court s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the code because it has no relation to the jurisdiction of the Court. Like other matters which are relevant and material in determining the question of the adjustment of debts, the question about the existence of the debt has been left to the determination of the Courts which are authorised to administer the provisions of the Act, and even if in dealing with such questions, the Trial court or the District Court commits an error of law, it can not be said that such an error would necessarily involve the question of the said court s jurisdiction within the meaning of sec. 115 of the Code". ( 8 ) IN Radhey Shyam vs. Nathuram (supra), another judgment of Gujarat High Court in Shah Prabhudas ishwardas vs. Shah Bhogilal Nathalal AIR 1968 Guj. 236 as well as judgment in Smt. Buchibai vs. Nagpur University air 1946 Nag 377 were also REFERRED TO and ultimately a single Bench of Rajasthan High Court took the view that admissibility of the document and order passed in respect thereto is a matter of procedure. ( 9 ) IN the light of the judgment in Harakchand vs. State or Rajasthan 1970 Raj. LW 320 (supra), howsoever gross an error may be while rejecting an application for admitting a document a revision can not be entertained and the aggrieved party would have to wait for making a grievance against such a rejection of application under order 13 Rule 2 in an appeal, in case a decree was passed against that party finally. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent also referred TO a judgment of Single Bench of this Court in ram Lal Dhirta Ram vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation, delhi AIR 1973 Delhi 112 (V 60 C 32) and DLF Housing and construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Sarup Singh AIR 1971 SC 2324 , wherein the Supreme Court under Sec. 115 observed as under:- "the position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. " ( 11 ) AFTER considering the case law on this principle, a Single Judge of this Court in Ram Lal Dhirta ram vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation, AIR 1973 Delhi 112 observed at Page 115 in para 7 :- IN this case the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the dispute. It had the jurisdiction to reject a document or impound it as also the jurisdiction to receive it on recording reasons showing as to why its receipt as evidence was justified. The Trial Court took the view that the document concerned could have been easily procured for purposes of litigation and that its genuineness was not beyond suspicion. ( 12 ) AFTER making these observations, the learned single Judge of this Court observed that the impugned order did not call for any interference under Sec. 115 CPC and dismissed the petition. ( 13 ) IN similar circumstances, the Supreme Court has held in Madanlal vs. Shyamlal AIR 2002 SC 100 in para 5 as under:- THE cause shown by the appellant was not considered to be a "good cause" as provided under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC. It is true that power under Order 13, rule 2, CPC could be exercised liberally and that "good cause" requires lesser degree of proof than that of "sufficient cause". May be that order, is erroneous, however, it can not be said that such order passed by the Trial Court could be interfered under Sec. 115 of CPC. It can not be said that the Trial Court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the applications filed by the appellant and that the order, if allowed, would occasion a failure of justice. The words "material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction" do not cover either errors of fact or law. It is open to the appellant to raise this contention at the appellate stage, if decree is passed against him. ( 14 ) FOR the fore-going reasons, neither it appeals that there is any material illegality or irregularity in the order, nor it would be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. ( 15 ) THE amount deposited by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court in terms of the earlier order of this Court dated 13/07/2001 shall be refunded to the petitioner. ( 15 ) THE amount deposited by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court in terms of the earlier order of this Court dated 13/07/2001 shall be refunded to the petitioner. ( 16 ) HOWEVER, when the matter comes up before the appellate Trial Court, the Appellate Trial Court is at liberty to consider the request of filling the document and any observation made hereinafter shall not come up in its way in exercise of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the appellate Trial Court. ( 17 ) THE petition is dismissed accordingly.