Short Note On consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. Applicant-plaintiff has directed this revision against order dtd. 6.1.2000 passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Cl. 1, Ratlam in MJC 25/97 thereby rejecting tile application filed on behalf of the applicant for permitting to lead secondary evidence under S. 65 of Evidence Act. Facts in brief are that - Applicant (plaintiff) has tiled an application before the trial Court under O.9. R. 9 CPC for restoration of his suit dismissed in default of his appearance. In support of his contention stated in me said application, the petitioner has tiled photostat copies of the case diary of the year 1995 maintained by Shri Agrawal, who was appearing for the applicant in the alleged suit. During the enquiry, the petitioner issued summons to advocate Shri Agrawal to appear before the Court as witness alongwith his original case diary of the year 1995. In compliance of the summons, Shri Agrawal appeared before the Court and submitted that his case diary with regard to year 1995 is not traceable. On the aforesaid statement of Shri Agrawal, applicant tiled an application before trial Court under S. 65 of the Evidence Act permitting him to lead secondary evidence with regard to the photostat copies of the entries made in tile case diary of Shri Agrawal. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that tile petitioner has tiled photostat copies of relevant entries made in tile case diary maintained by Shri Agrawal and summoned him to prove the said entries on the basis of the original diary maintained by him. Shri Agrawal appeared before the Court and submitted that me diary for the year 1995 is not traceable. As such the Court should have allowed me application tiled on behalf of the applicant in view of provisions of S. 65(c) of the Evidence Act. S. 65 of Evidence Act provides as under - "Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in tile following cases : (a), (b) .................. As such the Court should have allowed me application tiled on behalf of the applicant in view of provisions of S. 65(c) of the Evidence Act. S. 65 of Evidence Act provides as under - "Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in tile following cases : (a), (b) .................. (c) When me original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time." On plain reading of the aforesaid provision of the Evidence Act and in view of the statement made by Shri Agrawal before the Court, it is established that the original diary maintained by him for the year 1995, is not traceable and it is lost. As such, the applicant is entitled to lead secondary evidence to prove relevant entries made in the photostat copies of diary maintained by Shri Agrawal. The trial Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the prayer of the applicant permitting him to lead secondary evidence on the photostat copies of the entries made in the case diary maintained by Shri Agrawal. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court is set aside and the application filed on behalf on the applicant under S. 65 Evidence Act is allowed and the applicant is permitted to prove the entries made in the photostat copies to the diary maintained by Shri Agrawal by adducing secondary evidence. Parties through their counsel arc directed to appear before the trial Court on 5.2.2001. Office is directed to remit the record of the Civil M.C. 19/98 to the trial Court immediately alongwith copy of this order. No order as to costs.