IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.83 of 2008 SAMIUR RAHMAN Versus PARTH SARTHI ----------- 2 10.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the land lord against the order dated 6.10.2007, passed by the Munsif Aararia in Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 1005 by which a petition of the petitioner for getting a lease agreement marked as exhibit in the light of the evidence of one Md. Matloob has been rejected. The court below has found that there is nothing in the evidence of the Md. Matloob necessitating marking of this lease agreement as exhibit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this lease agreement was entered into between the defendant and the petitioner while inducting the defendant as tenant. She also submits that the petitioner has not yet been examined as a witness in the case. In the circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioner, being a party to the lease agreement, can prove the contents of the document in his evidence as and when he is examined as a witness. As such, this court does not find any error in the order of the learned court below and the revision application is dismissed. Kundan (J. N. Singh, J.)