These two revisions are directed against the orders of the court below granting permission under O.13, Rule 2, C.P.C, to the respondent to file additional list of documents. Learned counsel submits that in C.R.P.No.410 of 1992 an affidavit was filed setting out some reason for the delay in filing the documents. But, sufficient cause is not shown for producing the documents at a late stage. He submits that in C.R.P.No.411 of 1992 the respondent, did not even file an affidavit in support of the petition to explain the delay in filing the documents. In the typed set filed by him a copy of the petition is included. The petition refers to an affidavit accompanying the same. The petition is dated 10. 1991. In the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner he has categorically stated that no affidavit was filed along with the petition and no affidavit was served on him. Yet, the order of the court below does not consider the question as to whether an affidavit was filed or not.

2. The court below does not seem to have borne in mind the provisions of O.13, Rule 2, Sub-rule (1), C.P.C. The rule reads thus:

“No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which shou