JUDGMENT 1. - This is defendants' revision petition under section 115 CPC against the order d t. 12.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner whereby the application filed by the petitioners-defendants ti /O. 13 R. 2 r/w Section 151 CPC was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on grounds of making material alteration and committing default in payment of rent. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought an amendment to the effect that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The amendment was allowed by the Court on 19.4.1991. Thereafter, an additional issue was also framed on 1.2.1992. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff commenced and after examining two witnesses, the evidence of the evidence was finished. The case was fixed for the evidence of the defendant on 14.10.1993 and the case continued for this purpose upto 1.2.1994 but no evidence was produced by the defendant. It appears that thereafter the case was also held up on account of the fact that some compromise was alleged to have arrived at between the parties. These proceedings continued from 10.3.1995 to 17.1.1997. On 17.1.1997, the plaintiff expressed that no compromise has been made with the defendant and the regular proceedings commenced. 4. On 17.1.1997, the defendant moved an application u /O. 13 R. 2 CPC and sought to produce the report of an Engineer regarding the condition of the house. This document was prepared on 27.12.1994. The plaintiff resisted the above application on the ground that the above document was not genuine and the defendant had all the opportunities to produce the above document early. No plausible explanation has been rendered for not filing the above document in time. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the above application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the document was prepared on 27.12.1994 the same could not be produced or thought proper to be produced because it was alleged that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. In fact the proceedings of the case were held up from 10.3.1995 to 17.1.1997 for this purpose. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the document was prepared on 27.12.1994 the same could not be produced or thought proper to be produced because it was alleged that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. In fact the proceedings of the case were held up from 10.3.1995 to 17.1.1997 for this purpose. The defendant was under this impression that if the compromise has been arrived, there was no necessity to produce the above document. Fie, therefore, did not produce the same. He has submitted that regarding issue no. 8 that was additionally framed after the amendment allowed to the plaintiff, this document is very vital and will do justice to the case. It is, therefore, imperative that such an important document should not be excluded from production. 6. I have considered the submissions and analysed the facts and circumstances of the case. At the very outset, I may state that after the above amendment was allowed to the plaintiff on 19.4.1991, an additional issue was framed as early as on 1.2.1992. Thereafter the defendant has a clear impression of the case he has to meet and if he wanted to produce any such witness or document, he should have given a list of witnesses incorporating the name of such Engineer. When I asked pointedly the learned counsel was not in position to furnish any information regarding this aspect of the matter. No plausible explanation has bean furnished as to why this document which was allegedly prepared on 27.12.1994 could not be produced before. It is correct that the proceedings of the case were held up from 10.3.1995 to 17.1.1997 with regard to the alleged compromise arrived at between the parties but it ought not to have prevented the defendant from filing the document in Court or seeking permission of the Court at an early date. This could have been done in the alternative because it was not certain whether the alleged compromise would be recorded by the Court or not. The above document is not a public document and its genuineness was open to doubt. 7. I, therefore, hold that the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in dismissing the application of the petitioners.For the above reasons, there is no force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******