Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition is directed u/S.115 C.P.C against the order dated 24.3.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phalodi in civil suit no.19/93. (2). By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge rejected the prayer for marking the photostat copy of the patta as an exhibit in his case. (3). A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 15.3.1999, the case was listed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. When the examination of Jaikishan was commenced, a prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff that the photostat copy of the patta be marked as an exhibit. it was also represented before the trial court that the original patta was in possession of the plaintiff and was available in the court. The prayer was opposed by the defendant and the case was adjourned for the purpose of disposing of the prayer made by the plaintiff. The examination of Jaikishan could not proceed further. Several objections were raised by the defendant and the have been considered by the learned Civil Judge. (4). It does not appear from the impugned order dated 24.3.1999 shows that any application under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff with the prayer that the original patta be taken on record and that he be permitted to file the same in accordance with Rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C. Since, no application under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. has been moved, it is proper to infer that the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not pay any heed to the provisions contained in Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 C.P.C. as if these provisions did not exist in the Code of Civil Procedure. (5). It appears that the learned Civil Judge did not consider the fact of non-compliance of Rule 1 of Order 13 C.P.C and he based his conclusion mainly on the provisions contained in Order 7 Rules 14 and 18 C.P.C. (6). Ours is a country governed by doctrine rule of law. It would be the most dangerous preposition if it is held that the citizens may be allowed to ignore any provision of law in force. Ours is a country governed by doctrine rule of law. It would be the most dangerous preposition if it is held that the citizens may be allowed to ignore any provision of law in force. In the instant case, it was necessary for the plaintiff to have filed the patta which was in his possession and power and which he relied for the purpose of supporting his claim, before the settlement of issues as required by Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. If, for any reason,the plaintiff was prevented from filing the original patta in the trial court in compliance of Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C and he wanted to produce the same in evidence at a subsequent stage, it was necessary for him to file an application under Rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C showing the reasons for non-compliance of Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. What appears to have been done by the plaintiff in the instant case was that he invented his own procedure by keeping the original patta in his possession in utter disregard of Rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C. and on the date of hearing when the examination of Jaikishan was commenced, a prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff that the photostat copy be got exhibited by the court. The photostat copy of a document fails in the category of secondary evidence and no secondary evidence of a document is permissible unless the law allows the secondary evidence to be produced or a case is made out for the production of secondary evidence in place of the primary evidence which is the original document. It does not appear that the plaintiffs sought any permission to produce the secondary evidence and yet a prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff that a photostat copy of the patta which is secondary evidence be exhibited in place of the original patta. Thus, it is evident that the plaintiff did not care to comply with the provisions contained in Order 13, Rule 1 C.P.C. nor he produced the original patta in the court on or before the date fixed for recording the statement of Jaikishan. Even on the date on which Jaikishan was to be examined, he did not offer to produce the original so as to make it a part of the record. Even on the date on which Jaikishan was to be examined, he did not offer to produce the original so as to make it a part of the record. What the plaintiff wants was that a photostat copy produced by him should be exhibited by the court without complying with the provisions relating to production of secondary evidence. (7). The impugned order, therefore, cannot be disturbed u/S.115 C.P.C. as it is neither wanting in jurisdiction nor suffers from any material irregularity. The re- vision petition deserves to be dismiss and is here by dismissed. But it may be pointed out that nothing prevents the petitioners from moving a proper application under Rule 2 of Order 13 C.P.C. and to request the trial court to allow him to produce the original patta so that the same may be produced in evidence in accordance with law. It is expected that as and when such an application is moved, it shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly.