JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, the learned trial court [Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar] has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC and application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act filed by the petitioner-plaintiff United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') seeking to lead secondary evidence by producing the letter of subrogation submitted by M/s Madhu Milan Syntax in favour of petitioner- Insurance Company, who was paid the compensation by the petitioner Insurance Company, to be recovered from the respondent-defendant M/s Shrimal Transport Service since the loss of goods in question took place while the goods were in the custody of the respondent-defendant- Shrimal Transport Service. 3. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company submitted that since original letter of subrogation was misplaced and, therefore, photocopy of the same was produced and these circumstances, the application u/s 65 of the Evidence Act for allowing it to be led as a secondary evidence, has wrongly been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, against which the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed. 4. Mr. S.M. Toshniwal, learned counsel for the respondent defendant submitted that since the original document was not produced, no valid reasons were assigned by the petitioner Insurance Company, therefore, the secondary evidence could not be allowed by the learned trial court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application not allowing the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in the circumstances narrated in the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff Insurance Company. The secondary evidence in question in the form of letter of subrogation deserves to be taken on record and subject to same being proved by the petitioner-plaintiff, the said evidence could be weighed by the learned trial court in its own merits. 6. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Insurance Company deserves to be allowed and the same is, accordingly, allowed. 6. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Insurance Company deserves to be allowed and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 30.05.2011 passed by learned trial court is set aside; and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 65 of the Evidence Act is allowed. The respondent defendant, however, will be at liberty raise its objections/arguments at the time of trial/final hearing of the suit itself. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the learned court below forthwith.Petition allowed. *******