Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. Admit.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

3. At request of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

.4. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of property bearing No. E-386, Grater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The respondent entered appearance and defended the suit. On the completion of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 15.9.1998 as under:

.(i) Whether Shri S.R. Sharma, the defendant received Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of friendly loan and not in pursuance to the agreements -Annexures A and B as alleged by him?

.(ii) Whether the defendant had not entered into agreements to sell as alleged by the plaintiff?

.(iii) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement?

.(iv) Relief.

5. It appears that thereafter the respondent passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record. The trial, however, did not commence for one reason or the other. At the stage when the trial was to finally commence, the appellant filed an application being IA No. 5051/2005 seeking leave of the Court to file additional documents under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). The appellant claimed that these documents were sought to be produced for purposes of establishing that the appellant was ready, willing and able to purchase the suit property and in this behalf, the Bank passbook of Central Bank of India as well as documents registered with the Sub-Registrar were sought to be produced. This application was opposed by the respondents and in terms of the impugned order dated 29.7.2005, the application has been dismissed.

.6. The impugned order reads as under:

.This an application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC. Apart from the fact that this provision has been deleted from the CPC, there is absolutely no reason, explanation or any suggestion given why these documents could not have been produced at a much earlier stage and have been sought to be produced only a couple of days before recording of evidence. In the absence of any explanation, I do not find any merit in the application. The same is dismissed. The documents sought to be produced by this application cannot be now taken into consideration for the purpose of the case.

.7. Learned Counsel for the appellant rightly points out that the authority of the Court to bring on record such documents exists even after the amendment of the

.said Code in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of the said Code. The controversy thus is whether there was sufficient cause shown and it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that mere inadvertence could not be a ground to bring on record the documents belatedly at this stage. Learned Counsel in this behalf has referred to the observations in Madan Lal v. Shyam Lal : A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 100, though it is conceded that in that case trial had already begun.

8. We are of the considered view that since trial was yet to commence, these documents could have been brought on record specially as they came from some unimpeachable source and we find them germane to the controversy in question. The respondents could have been compensated with costs.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, points out that it is not within the purview of this Court to entertain the appeal as no appeal is maintainable against discretionary order declining documents to be taken on record belatedly.

.10. Learned Counsel for the appellant refers to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Begum Aftab Zamani v. Shri Lal Chand Khanna A.I.R. 1969 Delhi 85, to the following effect:

.It is not possible to lay down any definite rule which would meet the requirements of all cases and all that we may say is that in determining whether an order or decision constitutes a "judgments" or not the Court has to take into consideration the nature of