JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Araria in Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 whereby their prayer for grant of leave for bringing certain documents on record has been refused by the court below. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are poor persons not conversant with the provisions of law and thus the prayer for grant of leave to exhibit certain documents should have been allowed by the court below. 4. The trial court on consideration of rival submissions has rejected the prayer on the ground that the defendants have failed to show that despite due diligence the documents could not be produced by them at the appropriate stage. It has also been found that the defendants-petitioners failed to disclose the relevancy of the documents with regard to determination of lis between the parties. It has also been stated in the order impugned that since Order XVIII rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure stands omitted from the Code of Civil Procedure by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, which came in effect from 1.7.2002, there is no scope for production of such evidence at the stage of trial which has not been disclosed at the time of presentation of written statement. 5. The last finding of the court below cannot be sustained on account of the fact that it has already been held by a Bench of this Court in the case of Dukhan Rai & Anr. V/s. Mahendra Raj & Ors., reported in 2007(3) PLJR 8 that even after deletion of Order XVIII rule 17A it does not bar production of evidence at a later stage and the Court has inbuilt power to permit party to evidence, not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence. V/s. Mahendra Raj & Ors., reported in 2007(3) PLJR 8 that even after deletion of Order XVIII rule 17A it does not bar production of evidence at a later stage and the Court has inbuilt power to permit party to evidence, not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence. However, even on disagreeing with the aforesaid finding, since I do not find any error in the finding of the court below that the petitioners could not show that despite due diligence, they could not produce the documents earlier and also that they could not demonstrate before the court below that as to what was the relevancy of the documents concerned for determination of the lis between the parties, I do not find it to be a fit case warranting interference of this Court in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction. 6. In the result, this civil revision is dismissed.