JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Dr. S.S. Zombade filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 43,600/- against M/s Vardan Feed Mills, Bhaiwala Chowk, Ludhiana through its partner Sh. Brij Mohan Kaura. 2. M/s Vardan Feed Mills contested the suit and also filed counter claim. 3. M/s Vardan Feed Mills filed an application under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for permission to lead secondary evidence of the following letters :- "(1) Letter No. 1 - VFM/BM/Confidential dated 3.11.1986 addressed to Dr. S.S. Zombade with a copy of Professor-cum-Head, Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. Ludhiana received in the Department of Animal Sciences vide diary No. 13390 on 6.11.1986. (2) Letter No. VFM/BM/Confidential dated 26.12.1986 addressed to Professor- cum-Head Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. Ludhiana received in the Department of Animal Sciences vide Diary No. 5185 dated 26.12.1986. (3) Letter No. VFM/BM/Confidential dated 10.3.88 addressed to Dr. S.S. Zombade with a copy to Professor-cum-Head, Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. Ludhiana received in the Department of Animal Sciences, vide Diary No. 2562 dated 11.3.1988. (4) Letter No. VFM/BM/Confidential dated 6.5.88 addressed to Dr. S.S. Zombade with a copy to Professor-cum-Head, Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. Ludhiana received in the Department of Animal Sciences, vide Diary No. 6135 dated 10.5.1988." Defendants application for leading secondary evidence of the aforesaid letters was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana vide order dated 6.2.1999. 4. It is this order dated 6.2.1999, which has been called in question through this revision by the defendant M/s. Vardan Feed Mills. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants that application for secondary evidence moved by the defendants to prove the said letters by secondary evidence should have been allowed as carbon copies of those letters were placed on record when the written statement was filed. Defendants had summoned the concerned officials from the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana alongwith the receipt registers and the said letters. Sh. Sant Ram, Senior Assistant (Accounts) of the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, P.A.U., Ludhiana was summoned as DW-2. Defendants had summoned the concerned officials from the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana alongwith the receipt registers and the said letters. Sh. Sant Ram, Senior Assistant (Accounts) of the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, P.A.U., Ludhiana was summoned as DW-2. He had stated that the Department of Nutrition and Forages came into existence in April, 1981 and earlier this department was part of the department of Animal Science, P.A.U. The service record of the plaintiff-respondent was in the department of Animal Sciences, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana as he was appointed in the department prior to April, 1981. He had further stated that as per the Receipt Register of the Department of Animal Sciences, Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, there is entry No. 13390 dated 6.11.1986, vide which, a letter from M/s Vardan Feed Mills, Ludhiana was received, which was entered as confidential. The said letter had not been transferred to their Department by the department of Animal Sciences. He stated that letter dated 26.12.86 on behalf of M/s Vardan Feed Mills Ludhiana was received in the department of Animal Sciences vide entry receipt No. 15185 dated 26.12.86 and the entries are available in the receipt register. Letter received vide this entry is not traceable in the department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. 7. On 11.3.1988, a letter was received from M/s Vardan Feed Mills. Receipt of this letter was entered in the receipt register at Serial No. 2582 dated 11.3.1988. A letter dated 10.5.1988 was received on behalf of Sh. Brij Mohan Kaura. Its receipt was entered at Sr. No. 6135 dated 10.5.1988. 8. The aforesaid letters were not received in the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, P.A.U. Ludhiana. These letters should have been available in the transferred file of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs service book was not transferred in the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, P.A.U. Ludhiana. 9. It was submitted that Shri Surinderjit Arora, Senior Desk Assistant, Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. Ludhiana, DW3, has stated that prior to 1.4.1991, the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, P.A.U. Ludhiana was part of the Department of Animal Sciences. Record was transferred to the new Department. The plaintiff was employed as Assistant Nutritionist in the Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. His service book and personal file was not transferred in their department. Record was transferred to the new Department. The plaintiff was employed as Assistant Nutritionist in the Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. His service book and personal file was not transferred in their department. The aforesaid letters should be in the personal file of the plaintiff. He stated that the receipt registers produced by Sh. Sant Ram, DW2, show that the originals of Mark B, C and D (letters were received in the Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. Ludhiana)and the carbon copy of Mark A was received in their department. It was submitted that DW-2, Shri Sant Ram, Senior Assistant (Accounts) Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, P.A.U. Ludhiana and DW3 Shri Surinderjit Arora, Senior Desk Assistant, Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. Ludhiana made a categorical statement that the personal file and service book of the respondent-plaintiff was not traceable in the department. It was submitted that after their statements have been recorded, there was no other alternative for the petitioner-defendants but to seek the permission of the court to prove these letters by secondary evidence. It was submitted that the court should have permitted the proof of these letters by secondary evidence when the loss of original stood proved by the statements of DW2 Shri. Sant Ram and DW3 Shri Surinderjit Arora. 10. Dr. S.S. Zombade, appeared as PW1. Letter dated 3.11.86 ought to have been issued to him. He stated that letter dated 3.11.86 was not issued to him nor any said letter was received by him. He stated that he did not know whether P.A.U. received any copy of letter dated 3.11.1986 in the Department of Animal Sciences or not. Similarly he stated that he does not know if letters dated 26.12.86 and 10.3.88 were received or written by M/s Vardan Feed Mills, copies of which are Mark B and C. Before joining M/s Vardan Feed Mills, he was serving in the Department of Animal Sciences, P.A.U. Ludhiana. In 1988 one letter was received by him from the P.A.U. He was shown the copy of that letter which he admitted to be correct. 11. It was submitted that this fact stood proved from the statements of DW2 Sh. Sant Ram and DW3 Sh. In 1988 one letter was received by him from the P.A.U. He was shown the copy of that letter which he admitted to be correct. 11. It was submitted that this fact stood proved from the statements of DW2 Sh. Sant Ram and DW3 Sh. Surinderjit Arora, that the original of these letters in the PAU, Department of Animal Sciences, copies whereof were endorsed to the plaintiff, are not traceable in the Department of Animal Sciences with the creation of the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, P.A.U. Ludhiana in April, 1981. The record pertaining to the latter department was transferred to it. It was submitted that the fact stood proved that these letters were received in the Department of Animal Sciences but they were not traceable there nor the service book and personal file of the plaintiff was traceable. 12. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents can be given. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases :- "(a) When the original is shown or appear to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved; or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) XX XX XX XX XX XX (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reasons not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) XX XX XX XX XX XX XX (e) XX XX XX XX XX XX XX (f) XX XX XX XX XX XX XX (g) XX XX XX XX XX XX XX" 13. It was submitted that when the original is shown to have been lost, the secondary evidence thereof should have been allowed. Receipt of these letters finds mention in the Receipt Registers of P.A.U., Department of Animal Sciences. Carbon copies of these letters were placed on the record of the trial court by the defendant M/s Vardan Feed Mills. Defendants were not required to prove the loss of the original in absolute terms. Receipt of these letters finds mention in the Receipt Registers of P.A.U., Department of Animal Sciences. Carbon copies of these letters were placed on the record of the trial court by the defendant M/s Vardan Feed Mills. Defendants were not required to prove the loss of the original in absolute terms. Loss of the original letters stood proved by the statements of Sh. Sant Ram and Surinderjit Arora, officials of the P.A.U. Ludhiana. Both of them have categorically stated that after the formation of the new department, the record was transferred to the new department. Service book and personal file of the plaintiff is not traceable in the Department of Animal Nutrition and Forages, P.A.U. Ludhiana. For the reasons given above, this revision is allowed. Defendants are allowed to lead secondary evidence of the aforesaid letters. Revision allowed.