Judgment :- This revision has been filed against the order of the Court below in condoning the delay in filing the documents by the respondents herein at the time of trial. 2. The Court below, on being satisfied with the reasons adduced by the respondents in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, condoned the delay in filing certain documents, holding that the circumstances required an opportunity to be given to the respondents for producing the documents at a belated stage. 3. Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that after deletion of sub-rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C., there would be no scope for the trial Court to entertain such an application preferred by the respondents. The learned counsel would further contend that the reasons adduced by the respondents in the affidavit filed in support of the application were not sufficient in order to condone the delay in filing the documents on their side. 4. I do not agree to either of the contentions adduced on behalf of the petitioners. As far as the sufficiency of the reasons is concerned, when once the trial Court was satisfied with the reasons adduced by the respondents, especially when it felt that the acceptance of such reasons was necessitated, the trial Court was of the view that the respondents should be given an opportunity to produce those documents on their side. 5. When such being the perception of the Court below while accepting the reasons for condoning the delay in filing the documents by the respondents, I am afraid that this Court, sitting in its revisional jurisdiction, should attempt to desect those reasons with microscopic precision to find fault with the decision so arrived at by the Court below. Therefore, on that score, there is no scope for entertaining this revision. 6. Therefore, on that score, there is no scope for entertaining this revision. 6. As regards the contention that there is no provision of law available to the respondents to seek for introducing such documents at the stage of trial, inasmuch as Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC having been deleted from the Code, it will have to be held that though Rule 2 under Order 13 was deleted from the Civil Procedure Code, a perusal of Order 8 Sub-rule 3 of Rule 1-A, which was substituted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2002 in the place of Sub-rule 8-A of Order 8, which was omitted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002, makes it clear that the trial Court has been invested with sufficient power to permit the defendant to produce a document, which ought to have been produced at a particular point of time and which was not produced for certain reasons that may be stated by the defendant concerned. 7. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 1-A of Order 8 makes it clear that any such document can be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit with the leave of the Court. 8. When such substantial power is provided to the trial Court in the case of the defendant, who failed to produce the documents within the prescribed time limit, it cannot be held that the order of the Court below in having condoned the delay in filing the documents by the respondents/defendants at the time of trial is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Therefore, on this ground also, there is no scope for interfering with the order impugned in this revision. 9. Civil Revision Petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.is closed.