JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2 Chittorgarh in civil original suit No. 32/99, by which the application presented by the defendant on 27.3.2001 under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code has been rejected on the ground of delay and irrelevancy of the document to be produced. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-revisionist Mr. Shambhoo Singh and counsel for the non-petitioner Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari. Perused the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in Municipal Council Bharatpur v. Gokul Chand reported in 1987 RLW p. 640 , argued that mere late production of the document cannot be a valid ground for refusal of it, if the same is above suspicion and its production is necessary for the decision of the case. It was further argued by the learned counsel that the documents to be produced by the defendant are above suspicion and their production is necessary for right decision of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner argued that the documents are not relevant and no good cause has been shown by the defendant for not producing the documents earlier to 27.3.2001. He further argued that so-called agreement, on which the defendant relies, do not find mention in the so-called sale-deed dated 10.2.1993. The evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and the suit is pending for recording the evidence of defendant and at this stage, after delay of more than 3 years, these documents have been produced which were in possession of the defendant himself. Therefore, the trial Court has committed no jurisdictional error in the matter and the revision should be dismissed. 4. The defendant filed his written statement as early as on 23rd April, 1998. The evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and the defendant was given last opportunity to produce his evidence on 16th October, 2000. On 22.1.2001, the defendant submitted an application under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code for producing the certified copy of the sale deed, which was alleged to have been in the possession of the plaintiff. However, the same was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 22.1.2001. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for recording of the evidence of the defendant on 27.3.2001. No revision was filed against this. However, the same was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 22.1.2001. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for recording of the evidence of the defendant on 27.3.2001. No revision was filed against this. On 8.5.2001, the application presented by the defendant was rejected, which has been impugned in this revision. 5. Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code provides that the documents can be received at any subsequent stage of proceedings, which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 provided 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. 6. In this case, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner revisionist that no list of document has been filed by the defendant along with his written statement on being asked by the Court. The defendant was aware of the agreements dated 7th May, 1991 and 18th June, 1991. There was no reason to mention these documents in the list of the documents filed along with the written statement. These documents were well within the possession of the defendant and he was aware of their existence. In the opinion of the Court, no good cause has been shown as provided under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and the documents relevant for deciding the matter in the suit and their genuineness is not beyond suspicion. Therefore, looking to all the circumstances of the case, no jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial Court in the matter and no failure of justice would occasion, if the order is allowed to stand. The trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction vested in it. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. The decision given in Municipal Council, Bharatpur v. Gokul Chand (supra) does not apply in the present case as in that case certified copy of the judgments were produced. In the present case, so-called agreements do not find mention in the sale deed dated 10.2.93, in pursuance of which the sale deed was executed. Therefore, the authority placed by the learned counsel does not help the petitioner. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******