JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Dismissal of an application moved by the plaintiff-petitioners seeking production of additional evidence has given rise of to the present revision.
2. Case of the plaintiffs who are sons of Gauri Shankar is that Gauri Shankar took the premises in dispute on rent vide rent note dated January 4, 1977. Gauri Shankar died on July 10, 1980. Parveen Kumar defendant-respondent is alleged to be the cousin of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant should cease to use the shop in dispute and hand over vacant possession thereof to them. This suit was filed obviously on the ground that their father was a tenant and after his death, they are entitled to continue in possession. Defendant, however, claimed possession as tenant under the landlord on the strength of rent note executed by him in favour of Nasib Chand, attorney of the landlord. The plaintiffs moved an application for leading secondary evidence regarding rent note dated January 4, 1977 as according to them, the original rent note executed by Gauri Shankar was in possession of Nasib Chand, attorney of the landlord and said Nasib Chand had stated that the original rent note was not in his custody. Application for secondary evidence was allowed and the plaintiffs infact led secondary evidence regarding rent note dated January 4, 1977 and proved the same. The plaintiffs thereafter moved an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence in order to prove the original rent note dated January 4, 1977, which according to them was then available with them. The trial court, however, declined this application.
3. After sharing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision has no merit. Plaintiff-petitioners have not disclosed as to how the rent note dated January 4, 1977 which was earlier alleged to be in possession of Nasib Chand, attorney of the landlord has not come in their possession. Once Nasib Chand had stated that the original rent note was not available with him, the plaintiffs on their request were granted permission to prove the said rent note by leading secondary evidence. Once the plaintiffs had been granted permission to lead secondary evidence and they had in fact led secondary evidence to prove the alleged rent note, they cannot now at the stage of rebuttal evidence, he permitted to produce and prove the rent note by way of additional evidence, especially when they had not in their application alleged as to how and in what circumstances the alleged rent note has come in their possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any rule or precedent to show that after a litigant is permitted to produce secondary evidence, he can be permitted to lead additional evidence of the same document especially when nothing was brought out on the record to show as to how and in what circumstances the original thereof had come into their possession. Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for allowing additional evidence. The revision is consequently dismissed. No costs.