JUDGMENT :

1. The defendants in a suit for declaration of tenancy right and permanent injunction have preferred the instant revisional application, challenging an order allowing the application of the plaintiff/opposite party under Order XVIII Rule 2A, read with Section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the opposite party to adduce further evidence to bring on record the original of a purported tenancy agreement, a photocopy of which was previously marked as exhibit no.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that a photocopy of the said document had already been exhibited and, as such, there was no scope of granting further opportunity to the opposite party to produce the original thereof.

3. It is argued that the application for production of additional evidence was filed at an advanced stage of the suit and was intended to protract the litigation.

4. In the absence of any explanation as to the inordinate delay in filing the said application, the trial court, it is submitted, acted without jurisdiction in allowing the same. That apart, it is argued that the opposite party sought to fill up his lacunae in not producing the document previously, by the present appl