( 1 ) THE petitioner is plaintiff in O. S. No. 669 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. He filed the suit for delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property. e. , 700 Sq. yards of land forming part of Plot No. C16, IDA, Uppal, together with compound wall and gates as well as asbestos covered sheds. The suit is also for mesne profits. ( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 18. 1. 2006 from Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) for the purpose of setting up an industry. As he could not utilize the entire extent of land, he allegedly entered into licence-cum-hire agreement dated 01. 1. 1997 with the respondents/defendants who agreed to erect structures on the demised plot, after obtaining necessary permission and sanction from appropriate authorities. As per the said agreement, the period of license/lease was ten years with an option to renew the same. In 1999, having come to know that the respondents are raising structures without necessary permission from appropriate authorities, petitioner got issued notice calling upon the respondents to vacate the suit schedule premises, in vain. Therefore, he filed the suit. The suit is opposed by the respondents inter alia on the ground that they entered into lease-cum-rent agreement and that it is not a licence. They also denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE suit is coming up for trial. At that stage, petitioner filed. A. No. 127 of 2007 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, (the Act, for brevity), praying the trial Court to pass order to mark copy of the agreement dated 01. 1. 1997 as secondary evidence. In justification of the said application, petitioner alleged that the original licence-cum-hire agreement is in possession of the respondents and that in spite of notice by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), respondents failed to produce the original document. He also alleged that copy/carbon copy of the document, which remained with the petitioner, may be received as secondary evidence. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial court by an order dated 02. 3. He also alleged that copy/carbon copy of the document, which remained with the petitioner, may be received as secondary evidence. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial court by an order dated 02. 3. 2007 declined to accept the document as secondary evidence while observing that the document is a lease deed, that the document suffers from stamp duty and penalty and that the same cannot be received as secondary evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Rama Rao, submits that when the original document is in the possession of the other side, the plaintiff is entitled to produce secondary evidence after giving notice to the other side. Nextly he submits that at the time of execution of the agreement on 01. 1. 1997 a carbon copy was prepared on which both the parties signed and therefore the same can be received as secondary evidence duly impounding for the purpose of stamp duty and penalty. He also submits that when the trial Court heard the matter, petitioner also agreed that he is ready to pay the stamp duty and penalty in case of necessity. Opposing the revision petition, Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel for respondents submits that after receiving the notice to produce original document, respondents issued reply denying the availability of the original document and therefore under Section 65 of the Act, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to mark the copy as secondary evidence. Secondly, he submits that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents is lease and in the absence of proper stamp duty, the document cannot be accepted. According to the learned Counsel, if it is found that the document offered as evidence is not properly stamped, the trial Court can impound but a copy cannot be impounded for the purpose of stamp duty. ( 5 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the trial court in. A. No. 127 of 2007 dismissing the plea of the petitioner to produce secondary evidence, suffers from any error apparent on the face of record. ( 6 ) DOCUMENTS can be proved either by primary evidence or secondary evidence. Primary evidence means the document itself. A. No. 127 of 2007 dismissing the plea of the petitioner to produce secondary evidence, suffers from any error apparent on the face of record. ( 6 ) DOCUMENTS can be proved either by primary evidence or secondary evidence. Primary evidence means the document itself. Secondary evidence means certified copies of the documents, copies made from the original by mechanical process, copies compared with such copies and/or copies made from or compared with the original (Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Act ). All documents as far as possible must be proved by primary evidence and secondary evidence may be given of the existence of the conditions or contents of the document, in the circumstances as defined under Section 65 of the Act, if the original is shown or appears to be in the possession of a person against whom the document is sought to be proved and after issuing notice to the person in possession of original document (Sections 65 (a) and 66 of the Act ). Requirement of law is to give a notice to the possessor of the original document and in case he fails to produce original, secondary evidence can be offered. It may also be noticed that merely because secondary evidence is received the same does not amount to be proof. Even while secondary evidence is produced and permitted, document has to be proved in accordance with principles of evidence. ( 7 ) IN Nawab Singh v Inderjit Kaur, the appellant was the tenant of the respondent. He filed the suit for permanent injunction alleging that there was interference by the landlord. The tenancy was disputed. During the trial, the appellant filed an application for production of rent note in the custody of the respondent. The same was rejected. Therefore the appellant sought to lead secondary evidence. His request to lead secondary evidence was rejected by the trial Court as well as the High Court. In the Supreme Court, their Lordships held that the case is covered by clause (a) of Section 65 of the Act and allowed the appeal. Their Lordships further observed as under. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer seeking leave of the Court for production of secondary evidence. Their Lordships further observed as under. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer seeking leave of the Court for production of secondary evidence. The prayer has been rejected mainly on the ground that the copy of the rent note sought to be produced by the appellant was of doubtful veracity. The trial Court was not justified in forming that opinion without affording the appellant an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence. The appellant has alleged the original rent note to be in possession of the respondent. The case was covered by Clause (a) of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. ( 9 ) IN P. Meharunnisa Begum v P. Noorunnisa Begum, this Court considered the scope of Order XI Rule 14 CPC. It is a case of partition. Ex. A. 1, which was marked, referred to a document dated 25. 11. 1991 in Tamil language speaking about settlement about the plaintiff and their relations. So as to confront the plaintiff with the same, defendants filed interlocutory application for direction to the plaintiff to produce the document. The application was opposed inter alia on the ground that the document was not executed by the plaintiffs and that the contents thereof are not true. Learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the defendant did not make such averment in the written statement and that when the opposite party disputes the custody of the document, Order XI Rule 14 would not apply. This Court affirmed the order of the trial Court. While observing that if a party summoning the original document from the other side is in possession of the Xerox copy of the document, subject to complying with the provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of the Act, such party would be entitled to produce secondary evidence, this Court held: a party to a suit can approach the Court for compelling the other side to produce the document in possession of the latter. In such circumstances, it shall be lawful for the Court at any time to give direction to the other side to produce the document to enable the Court to deal with such documents in accordance with law. In such circumstances, it shall be lawful for the Court at any time to give direction to the other side to produce the document to enable the Court to deal with such documents in accordance with law. The exercise of power under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC is, however, subject to condition precedent, namely, the party who is to be ordered to produce document must be in possession or power of the document. When a person denies the allegation that he is in custody of the document the same by itself may not in a given case divest the jurisdiction of the trial Court under order XI Rule 14 of CPC. Sri Bakshi is right in contending that the Court has to conduct a prima facie enquiry and then arrive at a finding as to whether a party is in possession of the document. It is reasonable to presume that as and when a party is directed to produce a document and such document goes against the case projected or pleaded in the case, by reason of natural human conduct everyone denies the custody of the document. The condition precedent for ordering the production of document can be inquired into with reference to the pleadings and the evidence if any lead before the trial Court. ( 10 ) IN Trilokchand Jain v Gurrapu Rajamouli, this Court held that, "the person intending to adduce secondary evidence has to prove to the satisfaction of the Court the existence, condition, or contents of the original" by leading independent evidence to show that the document in its original form existed and that it is available with a particular individual. In Murtaza Moosavi v hemendra V. Shah, this Court after referring to Nawab Singh (supra), held that when the custody of the original document is denied by the party on whom notice is served under Section 66 of Evidence Act subject to proving the contents, the party summoning the document can be permitted to lead secondary evidence by producing Xerox copy or copies made out of the original and compared with the original. ( 11 ) THE consistent view taken by this Court appears to be that subject to a party satisfying the conditionalities in Sections 65 and 66 of the Act, secondary evidence can be allowed whether or not the opposite party allegedly has custody of original document. ( 11 ) THE consistent view taken by this Court appears to be that subject to a party satisfying the conditionalities in Sections 65 and 66 of the Act, secondary evidence can be allowed whether or not the opposite party allegedly has custody of original document. If the original document is produced by the party after receiving notice under Section 66 of the Act, there would not be any necessity for producing secondary evidence. This was also observed by this court in P. Meharunnisa Begum (supra) that generally a party would not be inclined to produce the original if such document goes against his case. Therefore, there cannot be any objection for producing secondary evidence. ( 12 ) THE next question is whether the learned trial Judge was right in examining the nature of the document and rejecting to receive the document on the ground that it is lease deed. Insofar as examining the nature of the document is concerned, there cannot be any criticism. However at the stage of production of secondary evidence, the document cannot be rejected raising a question that the same is not registered or not properly stamped. After receiving secondary evidence and before marking the document at the time of trial, it has to be verified whether such document is required to be stamped under the Stamp Act, 1899. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is willing to pay the stamp duty. Whether a document offered as secondary evidence, attracts stamp duty - be it Xerox copy or carbon copy or certified copy made and compared with the original; is a question that has to be gone into by the trial Court. ( 13 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and. A. No. 127 of 2007 is remanded to the Court of the Principal senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, to consider the same afresh keeping in view various decisions cited and observations made herein above. There shall be no order as to costs. .