JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order dated 24.8.2004. 2. After going through the facts of the case, I do not find any reason for interference in the order dated 24.8.2004 by which the petitioner's applications filed under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC and under Section 65 of the Evidence Act were dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the documents sought to be produced after the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff and case is fixed for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the defendant. Apart from it, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant claiming defendant to be the tenant in the permises. 3. In the above facts, it is for the plaintiff to prove that defendant is tenant and he will get success only on proving the relationship of landlord and tenant. 4. In view of the above, I do not find that the court below has committed any illegality. Hence, the revision petition of the petitioner is dismissed. *******