ORDER 1. By filing this writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India plaintiffs-petitioners seek to challenge the impugned order dated 21.4.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by 1st Civil Judge Class II, Mandleshwar (W.N.) in Civil Suit No. 32-N2004. The need to file this writ has arisen, because according to petitioners they have no right of civil revision which they could have filed earlier under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code i.e. prior to amendment in the Civil Procedure Code which was brought into effect from 1.7.2002. 2. Heard Shri B.I. Mehta, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri G.M. Agarwal learned counsel for respondents. 3. This petition is by the original plaintiffs. Their application for filing additional documents under Order 13, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code was rejected giving rise to filing of this writ petition. 4. By filing an application under Order 13, Rule 2 ibid, the plaintiffs wanted to file a Will said to have been executed by deceased Tarabai in favour of plaintiff No.2 (petitioner No.2), It is this prayer which was refused by learned trial Judge which is now being reiterated by means of filing this writ. Notice of this petition was issued to respondent and duly represented. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to allow this writ and set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Judge. As a consequence the application made by petitioners i.e. plaintiffs in the trial Court under Order 13, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code for filing additional documents viz. the Will, is allowed, thereby entitling the petitioners to receive the said document in evidence to prove his case. 6. In my considered opinion the approach of the Court in allowing the parties to file the document during trial should have been rather liberal. Admittedly the suit is at the trial stage and evidence is yet to start. 7. Under these circumstances no prejudice was being caused to either of the parties, if they, had been allowed to file a document. 8. If a document is allowed to be filed by the plaintiff then defendant is always at liberty to deny the existence of a document filed by plaintiff and file any document in rebuttal if so needed. Permission to file a document by any party does not amount to acceptance of a document in evidence. 8. If a document is allowed to be filed by the plaintiff then defendant is always at liberty to deny the existence of a document filed by plaintiff and file any document in rebuttal if so needed. Permission to file a document by any party does not amount to acceptance of a document in evidence. The parties are always at liberty to challenge the document not only in the pleadings but also in the cross-examination when occasion arises. It is only then the Court is entitled to appreciate the evidence and record the findings on merits one way or the other. 9. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. As observed supra, the document sought to be filed by petitioners is allowed to be taken on record. As a necessary corollary the defendants are also at liberty to file any document in rebuttal. Cost Rs. 500/- of this petition payable by petitioner to respondent for delay.