Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Petitioner - tenant is aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Nawanshahar, whereby he allowed the application of the petitioner - landlord to lead secondary evidence. In the present case, respondent - landlord had instituted a petition for eviction. In para 2 of the Rent Petition, petitioner - landlord had made a specific averment, which is as under: "2. That the property in dispute along with other properties forms part of Hindu Joint Family property, and the same was partitioned during the life time of Lajpat Rai on 1.4.1992 orally which was reduced into writing subsequently vide deed of settlement and the demised premises in question has fallen into the share of the petitioner, the said deed settlement, site plan are attached herewith." 2. It is stated that in pursuance of the notice issued by the Rent Petition, respondent - tenant appeared and filed application (Annexure P-1), in which he averred that on inspection of the file, it has been revealed that petitioner - landlord has placed incomplete alleged family settlement without map, on the file with malafide intention. A reply was filed by the landlord, in which it was stated that documents placed i.e., family settlement is a complete document and a photocopy of the same has been produced. Thereafter, application (Annexure P-3) was filed by the landlord stating therein that the documents are not traceable, which were with the petitioner, in spite of best efforts and on the basis of the same, rent has been paid, admitting the petitioner to the Rent Petition as owner/ landlord. Reply (Annexure P-4) was filed, in which it was stated that as a matter of fact, alleged family settlement relied by the landlord is a false, fictitious and sham document. The application of landlord was allowed vide impugned order and he was permitted to lead secondary evidence. The Rent Controller, Nawanshahar, while allowing the application, further observed that tenant - respondent would be at liberty not only to raise objections regarding admissibility of the documents in question, but he would also be entitled to cross-examine the petitioner as well as the witnesses to be examined by him, as also to lead his own evidence so as to controvert the evidence of the petitioner. It was further observed that no prejudice is therefore, going to be caused to the respondent in the event of allowing the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in respect of the documents in question. 3. The present petition is misconceived. In the application, it has been stated that in spite of the best efforts, documents are not traceable. It has been stated in the present petition that the Rent Controller has not examined the necessary ingredients for invoking Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that original documents should have been lost or destroyed. Whether the documents in original have been lost or destroyed, is a matter of evidence. No party can be permitted to rely on the fact that appropriate words have not been used and it has been stated that the documents are not traceable. It will only surface in the evidence that the landlord will examine whether original or the document has been lost of destroyed. It can be determined by the Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence, whether the documents in original have been lost or destroyed. It is premature at this stage to consider this argument. Furthermore, the necessary safeguard has been provided by the Rent Controller, when it has been stated that no prejudice is going to be caused and tenant will be at liberty to raise objections to the admissibility of the documents. It can be safely inferred that present petition has been filed only to delay the proceedings. 4. During course of arguments, it was further observed by this Court as to how the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 5. The Counsel has relied upon Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 147. A perusal of the judgment shows that though this Court has a supervisory jurisdiction, the same is to be exercised only if the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction which it does have, or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law, or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. It has been further held that this Court will intervene in case the error is manifest or apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, or a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 6. Learned counsel has relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Surinder Kumar v. Murari Lal, 1993 (2) RCR 535, wherein it was held that respondent had not come with clean hands, as he could have approached the Court earlier. It is specifically mentioned in that judgment, that permission to produce the documents at a belated stage cannot be granted. It was held in Surinder Kumars case (supra) that party to that case was not entitled to prove the documents by way of secondary evidence. It specifically held that Court will grant permission only when it comes to a conclusion that documents have been lost or destroyed. Needless to say, as observed earlier, conclusion is to be arrived at by the Court, only after the evidence has been led. 7. The courts have always held that the supervisory jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. All such inferences, which call for exercising the jurisdiction of this Court, are lacking in the present case. 8. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.