Short Note : 1. The plaintiff's case in the trial Court was that on 16-6-1968 the defendant took on rent the suit premises from him on a monthly rent of Rs. 25 and paid one month's rent in advance which was acknowledged by him vide Ex. P.1 From 16-7-1968 to 30-9-1968 the defendant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 212.50/- and electricity charges Rs.138/-. Subsequently with effect from 1-10-1968 the suit premises were under Ex. P-2, allotted to other members of the plaintiff's family. On account of this family arrangement the right to recover rent was transferred to the other members. In the written statement, the defendant alleged that he was neither the plaintiff's tenant nor was he bound to pay any rent to him. The suit premises, according to the tenant, were taken on rent by him from one Laxmi Narain, another member of the plaintiff's family. Laxmi Narain was said to have instituted a suit against him for arrears of rent. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In the revision application it was contended that the defendant had executed the rent note in favour of the plaintiff, which could not be proved in the trial Court as the same was not available till the conclusion of the trial; that the plaintiff be permitted to tender any evidence to prove the rent note executed by the defendant which had become available and that the plaintiff's suit should be decreed or that the case may be remanded for a fresh trial after permitting the plaintiff to tender the rent note in evidence. Held: In this case the vital question to be considered was as to whether the defendant was or was not the plaintiff's tenant from 16-6-1968 to 30-9-1968 and if so, to what extent he is liable to pay rent to the plaintiff besides the charges for electricity. The trial Court considered the evidence given by both the parties but till the trial concluded the rent note which was referred to in the plaint para No. 1, was not available, as according to the plaintiff it was handed over to the other members of the family to whom the suit premises were allotted vide Ex. P-2 This is, therefore, a case where the document was referred to in the plaint but could not for unavoidable reasons be tendered in evidence. P-2 This is, therefore, a case where the document was referred to in the plaint but could not for unavoidable reasons be tendered in evidence. If the execution of this rent note by the defendant is proved then certainly the entire approach to the case will be different. This Court, therefore, deems it proper that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity of tendering the document in evidence in the trial Court so that the suit may be decided afresh in the light of the evidence already on record and such other evidence a both the parties may deem necessary to adduce. Case remanded. Revision allowed.