JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of the plaintiff for producing additional evidence in the form of secondary evidence. 2. Tilak Raj plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against his sister Sumitra Devi challenging the collusive decree dated 18.1.1985. Both sides produced evidence. The case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments when the plaintiff filed an application for additional evidence in the form of secondary evidence, alleging therein that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff and Pala Ram (husband of Sumitra Devi defendant) vide sale deeds dated 1.7.1977 and 31.10.1977 and that the original sale deeds were in the possession of said Pala Ram husband of Sumitra Devi defendant and the same have not been produced by the defendant. It was alleged that the production of these sale deeds was relevant and material piece of evidence to decide the controversy between the parties. It was accordingly prayed that the plaintiff be allowed to produce additional evidence in the form of secondary evidence by producing the certified copies of the said sale deeds. The said application was contested by the defendant by filing a written reply. 3. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides and perusing the record dismissed the said application vide order dated 1.12.1998. It is against this order that the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while appearing in the witness box as P.W.1 on 12.8.1994, during cross-examination the petitioner had specifically stated that the original sale deed were in possession of Pala Ram and that he was not in possession of either the original or copies of the said sale deeds. He has submitted that certified copies of the said sale deeds could not be produced at the relevant time because the originals were with the said Pala Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he only want to produce certified copies of the two sale deeds by examining the Registration Clerk from the office of the Sub Registrar and would not produce any other evidence in this regard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he only want to produce certified copies of the two sale deeds by examining the Registration Clerk from the office of the Sub Registrar and would not produce any other evidence in this regard. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the petitioner may be allowed to produce and prove the certified copies of the two sale deeds by way of additional evidence in the form of secondary evidence. Admittedly the original sale deeds could not be produced by the plaintiff earlier as according to him these were in possession of Pala Ram husband of defendant Sumitra Devi. Since the originals are not in possession of the plaintiff certainly he can produce the secondary evidence to prove the said sale deeds. In my opinion, in the interest of justice, the trial Court should have allowed the plaintiff to produce and prove the said sale deeds in the form of secondary evidence by way of additional evidence especially when reference was made by the plaintiff about these sale deeds while appearing in the witness box as P.W.1. 7. For the reasons recorded above the present revision petition is allowed, the order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff for additional evidence in the form of secondary evidence is allowed. The plaintiff is allowed to produce certified copies of the two sale deeds and to prove the same by examining the Registration Clerk as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. This would, however, be subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 31.3.2000 on which date the conditional costs shall be paid and the trial court shall fix a date for producing additional evidence of the plaintiff. Revision allowed.