Judgment : Heard. Rule. The Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 3. The petitioner-original plaintiff is challenging the order passed below Exhibit 24 in Regular Civil Suit no.220 of 2009 dated 4.8.2011, whereby the application presented by the petitioner-original plaintiff seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the document namely issar pawti have been turned down by the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no.220 of 2009 against the defendant-respondent herein, claiming decree of specific performance of agreement dated 30.8.1988. It is stated by the petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint that original document i.e. issar pawti is lost in the year 1990 and xerox copy of the document is being tendered alongwith the plaint. The plaintiff has also stated in the plaint that he reserves the right to lead secondary evidence, if the defendant denies the execution of the document. The defendant did not cause appearance in the matter and as such suit proceeded ex-parte against him. The plaintiff tendered his examination in chief, however, since the defendant did not cause appearance, the witnesses produced by the plaintiff were not subjected to cross-examination. In view of the absence of specific denial of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the plaint, it has to be assumed that the case put by the plaintiff is un-controverted and the Court is expected to deal with the matter in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff in the affidavit presented before the Court in lieu of examination in chief reiterated his stand that the document i.e. issar pawti has been lost in the year 1990 and inspite of the best efforts on the part of the plaintiff, the document could not be found out. The contentions raised by the plaintiff in respect of loss of original document stated in the plaint as well as before the Court in his examination-in-chief remained un-controverted. The plaintiff, during the pendency of the proceedings in the suit tendered an application at Exhibit 24, requesting the Court to permit him to lead secondary evidence in respect of the document namely issar pawti. The plaintiff, during the pendency of the proceedings in the suit tendered an application at Exhibit 24, requesting the Court to permit him to lead secondary evidence in respect of the document namely issar pawti. It is contended by the plaintiff that he has made out case in respect of loss of original and as such in view of provisions of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, he needs to be granted permission to lead secondary evidence. The trial Court, however, proceeded to reject the application tendered by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has not substantiated his case in respect of loss of original. 5. The observations made by the trial Court in the order passed on 4.8.2011 are against the record. The contentions raised by the plaintiff-petitioner in respect of loss of original document have remained un-controverted. The plaintiff has stated his case in respect of loss of original document in the plaint so also he has reiterated his stand in the examination in chief by tendering Affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, so also by presenting separate affidavit in support of his application. 6. In these circumstances, it was an error on the part of the trial Court to hold that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case in respect of loss of original document. Since the plaintiff has complied with the pre-requisites laid down under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the trial Court ought to have granted him permission to lead secondary evidence for proving copy of the issar pawti. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is un-sustainable and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is thus allowed. The order passed below Exhibit 24 in Regular Civil Suit No.220 of 2009 passed by the trial Court on 4.8.2011 is quashed and set aside and the application tendered by the plaintiff at Exhibit 24 shall be deemed to have been allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.