Late production of documents requires good cause, and revision lies only for jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

Good cause must be shown before additional documents can be produced at a later stage under Order XIII Rule 2 CPC, and a bare assertion that the documents are genuine and relevant is not enough. The delayed production was therefore rejected, and the party was not entitled to have the documents received before its evidence was recorded. Revisional interference under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional error or material irregularity; a mere erroneous refusal to admit documents does not justify revision. The trial court's order was accordingly upheld and no interference was required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had shown good cause to produce additional documents at a later stage under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) Whether the trial court's refusal to take the documents on record was open to interference in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had shown good cause to produce additional documents at a later stage under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The documents sought to be produced were stated to be genuine and relevant. The question was only whether, despite not having been produced at the proper stage, they could still be brought on record before the appellant's evidence was recorded. The explanation offered for the delayed production was not accepted as sufficient to satisfy the requirement of good cause under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to have the documents received at that stage.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial court's refusal to take the documents on record was open to interference in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: An erroneous order does not by itself justify revisional interference. The scope of Section 115 is confined to jurisdictional errors and material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, not mere errors of fact or law. The refusal to accept the documents did not amount to such material irregularity or jurisdictional error as would warrant interference in revision.

Conclusion: The revisional court was not required to interfere with the trial court's order.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to admit the additional documents was upheld, and the appellant's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference is not available for a mere error in refusing late production of documents unless the order discloses a jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.

---