Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.2.2003, passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioners for production of additional evidence, only on the ground that in the amended Code of Civil Procedure, there is no provision for allowing the parties to produce additional evidence. 2. Notice of motion was issued in this case and further proceedings were stayed. 3. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 40,000/- against the defendants, in respect of a transaction for Rs. 31,215/- being the amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs along with interest. In the written statement, the defendants contested the suit and it was prayed that they were not liable to pay anything to the plaintiffs. Various issues were framed. Both the parties produced their evidence and the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence when the plaintiffs filed application for additional evidence, alleging therein that only on the previous date, they had received a photostat copy of the return submitted by defendant, No. 1 Firm in Form ST-23A dated 28.7.1998 for the period 1.4.1999 to 30.6.1999 wherein defendant No. 1 Firm had shown purchase worth Rs. 31,215/- at Sr. No. 7 of the return which goes to prove the case of the plaintiffs. It was prayed that the plaintiffs may be allowed to summon the concerned record from the Sales Tax Office. The said application of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 10.2.2003. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs filed the present revision petition in this Court. 4. After hearing learned counsel or the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, the present revision petition must be allowed, the order dated 10.2.2003, passed by the trial Court, must be set aside and the plaintiff-petitioners be allowed to produce additional evidence, so as to prove the Sales Tax Form ST-23A, submitted on behalf of defendant No. 1 Firm by summoning the said record through some official from the Sales Tax office. If the defendant-Firm itself has furnished some documents with the Sales Tax Office admitting the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of amount of Rs. If the defendant-Firm itself has furnished some documents with the Sales Tax Office admitting the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of amount of Rs. 31,215/-, in my opinion, it would be most appropriate to allow the plaintiffs to produce the said evidence by way of additional evidence at the trial stage itself in the interest of justice. If the plaintiffs are not allowed to produce the additional evidence, in my opinion, this will amount to miscarriage of justice insasmuch as in that eventuality, the plaintiffs would be required to produce additional evidence in the appeal that may be filed before the appellate Court. In my opinion, the production of additional evidence would advance the cause of justice especially when it is the document of the defendant-Firm itself which is sought to be produced by way of additional evidence. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is allowed, the order dated 10.2.2003, passed by the trial Court, is set aside and the application of the plaintiffs for production of additional evidence, is allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 1,500/-as costs. 6. Since further proceedings were stayed in this case, the parties, through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 1.12.2003, for other proceedings.