Good Cause depends upon facts and circumstances of individual case.

1. Heard Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 4137 of 1996, filed for directing the respondents/defendants jointly and severally to pay the revision petitioner/ plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,74,110 together with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.6,43,360 from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for costs, based on six promissory notes even dated 1.9.1983 for Rs.50,000 each.

3. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants, denying the very execution of the promissory notes, inter alia contending that no consideration was passed on the suit promissory notes.

4. To Substantiate their contention, the revision petitioner/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.2. Since in the cross-examination the signatures of the respondents/ defendants were strongly disputed, the revision petitioner/ plaintiff, on the very next day of the closing of cross-examination, filed I.A.No. 16208 of 2001 for production of all the account books, which are in the custody of the respondents/defendants, and after a few days, filed I.A.No.10810 of 2001 to reopen the case and reexamine P.W.1. But the same was objected to by the respondents/ defendants on the ground that both these steps are wilful abuse of the process of the Court, as the revision petitioner/plaintiff has failed to take steps at an appropriate time, even though he is said to have had knowledge of the transaction.

5. Accepting the objections raised by the respondents/ defendants, the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by separate orders even dated 13.11.2001 in I.A.Nos.16208 of 2001 and 16810 of 2001, dismissed both the applications. Hence the above revision.

6. Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, contends that the phrase "good cause", used in Order XIII Rule 2, C.P.C., only means sufficient cause. In other words, it is suffice for the party who approaches the Court seeking permission for production of the document under Order XIII Rule 2, C.P.C., to satisfy the Court with regard to his bona fide for production of the document at a subsequent stage.

7. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that the powers conferred under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., should be exercised liberally. Similarly, it is contended that the refusal to recall the witnesses on an application filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17, C.P.C., should also be construed liberally, to meet the ends of justice.

8. No representation on behalf of the respondents/ defendants.

9. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., which deals with the powers of the Court in granting permission with regard to the production of documents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, as well as Order XVIII, Rule 17, C.P.C., which deals with the power of the Court, to recall and examine the witnesses:

"Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C.:

Effect of non-production of documents.—

(1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. (2) Noting in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents,—

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. " " Order XVIII Rule 17, C.P.C.: Court may recall and examine witness.— The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. "

10. The phrase "good cause" employed under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C.,