Pankaj Mithal, J.— Heard Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff revisionist and Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. This revision under Section 115 CPC has been preferred against the order of the trial court dated 1.11.2012 rejecting the plaintiff revisionist's application paper no. 145 Ga for taking on record about 17 documents in evidence. 3. The suit is for recovery of certain bank dues and is pending since 1998. The application for taking on record the above documents was filed on 10.10.2012. The said application is annexure 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The application merely states that the plaintiff revisionist is producing originals of the documents and that may be taken on record. The application contains no explanation as to why the said documents could not be filed by the plaintiff revisionist earlier. 4. The court below in rejecting the application records that the aforesaid documents are the basis of the suit and therefore, can not be permitted to be taken on record at the stage of cross-examination of the witnesses, more particularly when no reason or explanation has been given in the application for not producing them in evidence earlier. 5. The submission of the counsel that as the evidence was in the process of being recorded, there was no harm in taking the aforesaid documents on record can not be accepted for the reason that there is no explanation for producing the documents which were the basis of the suit after such a long time. 6. The revision is dismissed. _____________