' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner claiming himself to be the mortgagee of a house owned by the respondent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs,9,620 against the latter. The amount claimed represented the mortgage debt as well as the compensation for the use and occupation of the house by the respondent. The respondent denied that he had ever mortgaged the house with the petitioner or that after the creation of the mortgage he had taken the house on rent from him. After a regular trial, the Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner had failed to place on record the mortgage deed or the rent note allegedly executed by the respondent. Its judgment was affirmed by the Additional District Judge in appeal and by the High Court in revision. Now, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give any explanation why the petitioner did not produce the mortgage deed or the rent note at the trial. He however prays that he may he permitted to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one. We are unable to accept this request, for permission to file a fresh suit cannot be granted just because during the course of the trial the petitioner had omitted to produce evidence which he ought to have led before the Court.
Leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.