JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.97 passed by viii Addl. District Judge, Gwalior. Briefly narrated facts are that, the respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the basis of an agreement which did not Bear signature of respondent No.4. The suit was contested and the defendant No. 1 i.e. the present petitioner claimed that there was mutual partition in between family members on 16.7.74 which was acknowledged by a writing on 26.9.74. The disputed property fell in the share of respondent No.4. He had filed the acknowledgement of partition dated 26.9.74 before the Court below and had given copy to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The learned trial Court thereafter returned the original document to defendant No.1 i.e. the present petitioner. The acknowledgment/ memorandum of partition was prepared in four typed copies over which defendant No. 1 i.e. the present petitioner and his family members had signed. Every copy had the signatures of the notary and seal. During the pendency, the memorandum which was on stamp paper could not be made available inspite of best efforts, hence an application purporting to be under section 62 of Indian Evidence Act for accepting the copy which bear signatures of all the persons was moved before the learned Court below and the learned Court below has rejected the application by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under explanation No.2 of section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act "where a number of documents are made by one uniform process, each one has to be taken as primary evidence of the contents of the rest. He, therefore, urged that as the documents sought to be filed is a carbon copy of the main document it is primary evidence and it should have been taken and should have been accepted by the Court below. The Court exercised jurisdiction illegally in refusing to take the document. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that several opportunities were given and directions were also given by the learned Court below for producing the original document, but it was never produced. The Court exercised jurisdiction illegally in refusing to take the document. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that several opportunities were given and directions were also given by the learned Court below for producing the original document, but it was never produced. Learned counsel took me through the order sheet of the Court below and pointed out that inspite of the directions of the Court, the original document was not produced. He urged that in reality there has never been any such document and hence the original document is being suppressed inspite of the fact that the Court made specific directions. The documents sought to be filed cannot be said to be primary evidence within the meaning of section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act. The application was rightly rejected by the Learned Court below. I have considered the contentions raised before me. It has to be kept in mind that according to the allegation of the petitioner himself as mentioned in memorandum there was a partition of which memorandum was prepared on 26.9.74. In para 3 the allegations are that the said memorandum of partition was got typed in four copies and each copy was signed by the defendant No. 1 i.e. the present petitioner and his family members and was signed and sealed by the notary. It, therefore, itself goes to show that one document was prepared and four copies were got typed. Now if we see the explanation 2 of the section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act we find that the document alleged to be primary evidence cannot be said to be covered within the meaning of the explanation No.2. A perusal of explanation No. 2 shows that it provides "where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest, but where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original". Under this explanation if number of documents are all made by one uniform process as in the printing, lithography or photography each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest and there is a specific provision in this explanation that where they are all copies of common original they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. Under this explanation if number of documents are all made by one uniform process as in the printing, lithography or photography each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest and there is a specific provision in this explanation that where they are all copies of common original they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. Thus, in view of what has been averred by the petitioner himself that original memorandum was got prepared in four typed copies, it cannot be said that the case is covered under the explanation No.2. It is not the case that all the documents including the alleged document was prepared by a common uniform process i.e. photography, printing or lithography. I may also add that this case cannot be said to be covered even under explanation No.1 because explanation No. I relates to a document which is executed in several parts. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the document sought to be filed as primary evidence could' not be said to be primary evidence. The objection of the respondent is that it was forged document, I refrain making any observation in this regard because it has to be seen by the learned trial Court if the original document is brought on record or if it has been lost secondary evidence is sought to be filed and the Court permits it in accordance with law. In view of what has been said above, as the document sought to be filed could not be said to be primary evidence the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. I do not find any jurisdictional error. The revision has, therefore, no force. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.