Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, J.

1. This application by the defendant first party is directed against an order dated the 5th November, 1973, admitting into evidence a certain document.

2. In a suit, being Title Suit No. 158 of 1969, the relief sought was a declaration that Madarghat Thakurbari with its deities and properties, mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint, is a Public Hindu Religious Trust. This was a suit in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). After hearing of the suit had progressed for quite sometime, on 20-9-1973 a petition was filed under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code for the admission of a bahi, known as Karyabahi Bahi (wrongly described as Karyakram Bahi) of Natya Kala Parishad, known as Ram Krishna Natya Kala Parishad. According to the Plaintiffs, this document was being filed in support of what was stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint, namely, that a committee was appointed to advise the Mahanth on matters of development of the Thakurbari, and in pursuance thereof a Natya Kala Parishad of the Thakurbari had been established, in order to indicate the public character of the Thakurbari. The admission of this document was objected to on behalf of the defendant-petitioner, firstly, on the ground that it was being filed at a very late stage of the suit and that the document was not even in the list of documents filed in accordance with Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code, and, secondly, because, according to the defendant, the said document was false, fabricated and forged. The learned Subordinate Judge found enough justification for the late filing of the said document and further observed that "it is apparent that there is a good ground for allowing the plaintiffs prayer for getting the document admitted into evidence." The document was, therefore, admitted into evidence by the impugned order.

3. Mr. Sen appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Court below having not considered the relevancy of the document had erred in admitting it merely after finding good cause for the late filing of the document. According to Mr. Sen, in terms of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code a Court was required not only to look into the question as to whether there was good reason for the delay in filing of the document but to further consider as to whether the document should at all be admitted having regard to the question of its genuineness, relevancy and such other facts. In the instant case, on reading the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, it was submitted, that the only consideration which the Court thought to be necessary for disposing of the petition under Order 13, Rule 2 was to find out as to whether or not there was good ground for the delay in filing the document. Mr. Sen, therefore, submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge has acted with material irregularity and has also failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly.

4. On behalf of the opposite party the reply was that in terms of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code the question of relevancy or otherwise of a document or of its genuineness was absolutely foreign. What was necessary for a court to consider, while disposing of an application under Order 13, Rule 2, was to find out as to whether the party had good cause for non-production of the document. In other words, the only thing which the Court was required to do, while passing an order with regard to the admission of a document in terms of Order 13, Rule 2 was that it should look to the cause for the delay and to nothing else. It was further submitted that in any event the revision before this Court was not proper, firstly, because it was not a revision against "a case decided" and, secondly, because the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition in revision should be dismissed.

5. In my opinion, the scope of Order 13, Rule 2, as canvassed on