JUDGMENT : Petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by an order passed by the JMFC dismissing his application moved under section 65 of the Evidence Act, dated 15th March, 2005 whereby, the request made by the petitioner to permit him to exhibit the fax copy of the notice allegedly sent by the respondent to the petitioner in addition to a notice which has been admitted to have received by the petitioner which was sent on 2nd July, 2005. He also wanted to produce photocopy of the fax notice as the notice sent by fax was not readable. Petitioner submits that under section 65 of the Evidence Act, since the fax notice was not readable, he was entitled to send a photocopy of fax notice as secondary evidence. He has referred to Clause 'C' of section 65 of the Act and submitted that the clause is attracted in this case. 2. However, learned JMFC has dismissed the application moved by the petitioner by making following observations in Para 6 of the order : - XXX XXX XXX 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner is not disputing that at the time when the witness of the petitioner was cross-examined, even though, a suggestion was given to the witness that they also sent a notice by fax which they denied, the petitioner has not confronted witness of the respondent complainant with the fax copy of notice which was in their possession at the relevant time and they have also not mentioned anything about the fax notice in their reply sent to the notice dated 2nd July, 2005, which is Exh. P-6. 4. A bare reading of this reply shows that there is nothing mentioned about therein about the receipt of any fax sent by the complainant to petitioner. Trial Court has made reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 1721 , Yeshoda vs. K. Shobharani, wherein has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "if any photocopy of the document sought to be produced cannot compared with the copy with which a document on which reliance is placed upon by the applicant, such copy cannot be taken into consideration under section 65 of the Evidence Act." 5. Learned Counsel has cited two judgments one is delivered in the case of Sil Import vs. Exim Silk Exporters, 1992 MPLJ (S.C.) 168 = (1999)4 SCC 567 , and second is the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Harishchand Pipariya (Dr.) vs. Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, 2002(1) MPWN 38 . Those two judgments do not help the petitioner to contend that the photocopy of fax notice which is not readable copy thereof be now taken on record or be allowed to be exhibited in the form of the defence. 6. Petitioner cannot be granted any relief. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.