JUDGMENT : Rafiq, J. This is an application in revision from the decree of the court of Small Causes at Shahjahanpur. It appears that the applicants sued the opposite party for the recovery of rent of certain land on the allegation that the opposite party had executed a rent-deed in favour of the applicants according to which fourteen annas and three pies were due from Hamid-ud-din. The applicants did not produce the original-deed but a copy of it. They said that the original could not be produced as it had been mislaid somewhere. The opposite party, in the first: paragraph of the written statement, admitted the bare execution of the said deed, but on a subsequent date, when the learned Judge recorded the pleadings of the parties, Hamid-ud-din the opposite party denied the execution of the deed in question. The learned Judge after recording the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the loss of the original deed had not been proved and hence the claim on a copy of it could not be maintained. The applicants' suit was accordingly dismissed. The applicants challenge the decree against them by their application in revision to this court on the ground that in view of the admission contained in the first paragraph of the written statement, there was no necessity for the plaintiffs-applicants to prove the loss of the original. The obvious reply to the applicants is that in the pleadings recorded by the lower court, subsequent to the filing of the written statement, the defendant denied the execution of the rent-deed in suit. This denial must be taken to have altered the pleadings contained in the written statement. As there was no admission by the defendant, i.e., by the opposite party, of the rent-deed in suit, the plaintiffs-applicants could not maintain their suit on a copy of it, having failed to prove the loss of the original. The application, therefore, fails and is rejected with costs.