Judgment

R.C. Lahoti, J.-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 induct by the defendant-respondent as per rent note dated 23.9.94. 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 date of 23.9.94, 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. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer seeking leave of the court for production of secondary evidence. The prayer has been rejected mainly on