NAWAB SINGH Vs. INDERJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THE appellant has filed a suit for permanent preventive injunction restraining the defendant -respondent from interfering with the possession of the appellant. The appellant alleges himself to be a tenant in the suit shop inducted by the defendant -respondent as per a rent note dated 23.9.1994. The tenancy is seriously disputed by the respondent. At the trial, after having taken about 14 adjournments for adducing evidence, the appellant moved an application seeking production of the rent note from the custody of the respondent, which application was rejected by the trial Court. On the next date of hearing the appellant moved an application seeking leave of the Court for production of secondary evidence of the rent note dated 23.9.1994, which application has also been rejected by the trial Court. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing a civil revision before the High Court which has been dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant was protracting the trial and being in possession of the premises was interested in delaying the hearing of the suit. That mayor may not be true but the fact remains that that is not the reason on which the rejection by the trial Court is founded. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be satisfied if the appellant is allowed an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence but subject to terms.