JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 20.1.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), (VII), Shimla in CMA No. 8-6 of 2012 in Civil Suit No. 2-1 of 2010. allowing the application of respondents for proving agreement dated 7.9.1992 by way of secondary evidence. 2. The brief facts are that respondents have filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement dated 7.9.1992. The petitioner has contested the suit and in the written statement he has denied the execution of agreement dated 7.9.1992. In the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, the respondents have stated that the original agreement dated 7.9.1992 was handed over to petitioner herein. 3. A copy of alleged agreement dated 7.9.1992 has been placed on record. This agreement is between Milap Chand showing him as seller and Mohan Lal, Giridhar Gopal and Raj Kumar as buyers. In the end of the agreement, it has been stated that original agreement has been given to Mohan Lal etc. and a copy of the agreement has been given to Milap Chand. This apart, Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that secondary evidence relating to documents may be given when the original has been destroyed or lost. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) in the impugned order has observed that at this stage finding regarding existence of document cannot be given and it could be given at the time of final adjudication of the case. This observation of the learned Civil Judge is contrary to Section 65 (c) of the Indian Evidence Act. The existence of document and thereafter its loss is required to be established before allowing application for secondary evidence. The impugned order is not sustainable and therefore set-aside. The trial Court is directed to decide the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act afresh in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of on above terms. CMP Nos. 1479 and 1480 of 2012 has become infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition.