Judgment :- (1.) The defendant/petitioner in a suit for eviction of a licensee filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order being No. 49 dated 5th June, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 127 of 2005 by which the learned Trial Judge refused to admit the xerox copy of the amicable settlement deed as an exhibit in the suit as per section 65 of the Evidence Act. It is alleged by the defendant that the elder brother of the defendant was the custodian of the original deed of amicable settlement. The defendant wanted to rely upon the said xerox copy of deed to support his defence in the said suit. (2.) Since the elder brother of the said defendant was the custodian of the original document, the elder brother of the defendant was called upon to produce the original document in the suit so that the said deed can be admitted into evidence. (3.) The elder brother of the said defendant deposed as D.W. 2 in the said suit. He stated that the original document was somehow misplaced from their custody. He further stated that the xerox copy which was shown to him was prepared on 26th January, 2003 in presence of all the brothers and sisters. (4.) On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the defendant wanted to prove the said document as a secondary evidence as per section 65 of the Evidence Act. (5.) The learned Trial Judge was not satisfied with regard to the proof of the said document and accordingly, the learned Trial Judge refused to admit the said document into evidence. (6.) The defendant is aggrieved by the said order. Hence, he has filed the instant revisional application before this Court. (7.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. (8.) On perusal of the evidence of elder brother of the defendant, Prakash Chandra Ghosh, D.W. 2, this Court finds that he has not stated in his evidence that the xerox copy which was shown to him is a true xerox copy of the original deed of settlement. He has also not stated in his evidence that the said xerox copy was prepared through an amicable process in his presence. He has also not stated in his evidence that the said xerox copy was prepared through an amicable process in his presence. (9.) Unless it is proved that the original is lost and/or destroyed and the copy which is sought to be proved as secondary evidence is a true copy of the original document, the xerox copy of the said document cannot be allowed to be exhibited in the suit. (10.) Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order by which the petitioners prayer for admitting the said document into evidence was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. (11.) The revisional application, thus, stands rejected. (12.) Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Appeal dismissed.