This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 12.5.86 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei in Title Suit No. 1 of 1982 dismissing suit. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted the suit against the respondents claiming, inter alia, declaration that transfer of ownership of the land covered by the certificate of land settlement No. 56 of 1972 issued in favour of the plaintiff to Shri R. K. Buaia on 3.6.76 and subsequent transfer of the same to Shri P. C. Darliana on 25.8.81 are illegal. The case of the plaintiff is that be is a settlement holder under certificate of land settlement No.56 of 1972 in respect of the land in dispute. After the settlement of the land he has been in the possession of the land. The plaintiff-petitioner never transferred the land in dispute to any person. But in the year 1981, the plaintiff-petitioner came to know that the land has been registered and a certificate of land settlement has been issued in favour of defendant No. 5 R. K. Buaia on 3.6.76 by the Assistant Settlement Officer without the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner. He also came to know that the land in dispute has again been leistered in the name of defendant No.6 P.C. Darliana in place of defendant N.5 Buaia by the assistant Deputy Commissioner Lunglei. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 resisted the suit denying the allegations made in the plaint. 3. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner dismissed the suit by holding that there was transfer of the land in dispute vide, Ext.5 4. J have perused the deed of transfer of the land in question (Ext.5). Ext.5 is not the original of the deed of transfer; but, a photocopy of the original. However, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has held that the document has been proved. 5. Mr. Thanga learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable to the State of Mizoram. If that be the -position the cardinal rules of the Evidence Act may not be applicable, but the principles of natural justice as well as the rule of best evidence cannot be ignored. 5. Mr. Thanga learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable to the State of Mizoram. If that be the -position the cardinal rules of the Evidence Act may not be applicable, but the principles of natural justice as well as the rule of best evidence cannot be ignored. Therefore, although the contents of a document may be proved either by primary or by the secondary evidence, where written instrument exists or the written instrument is the basis of a claim the instrument itself should be produced as being the best evidence of its contents to prove the claim. If the contents of the document is to be proved by secondary evidence, the circumstances for the reception or admission of the secondary evidence must be shown. In other words, found­ation for admission or reception of secondary evidence must be laid in the spirit of the Evidence Act. On perusal of the evidence on record, I do not find that the foundation for admission of the secondary evidence has been laid, although certificate of registration (Ext.-8) has been produced. It also may be noted here that more marking an exhibit does not dispense with proof of the document, 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to send back the case to the trial Court for disposal of the matter afresh after giving the parties an opportunity to examine witnesses relating to the execu­tion or non-execution of the deed of transfer in the light of the observations made above. Thereafter, the trial Court shall decide, if the transfer exists, compliance or non-compliance of Rule 25 o*% the Mizoram District (Land & Revenue) Rules, 1967 and the effect of non-compliance, if any. 7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 1 of 1982 is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for disposal afresh in the light of the direction and observations made above. No costs.