JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, petitioners-plaintiffs Nirvail Singh and Sucha Singh sons of Shangara Singh (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) have instituted the civil suit for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the Punjab State Electricity Board and its officers respondents-defendants No.1 to 3 from disconnecting the tubewell connection and further restraining the private respondents-defendant Nos.4 to 9 (for short “the contesting defendants”) from transferring the electric connection in dispute to any other person in any manner. The defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of suit. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application (Annexure P1) u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) for permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the copy of deed of agreement/family settlement dated 18.4.1995. The contesting defendants No.4 to 8 refuted the prayer of plaintiffs, filed the reply (Annexure P2), strongly denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 3. The trial Court dismissed the application of plaintiffs for permission to lead secondary evidence, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.7.2012 (Annexure P3). 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-plaintiffs have preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the parties to the suit are closely related to each other. The plaintiffs are claiming their right in the tubewell connection on the basis of deed of family settlement dated 18.4.1995. The original of the agreement was stated to have been lost from them. Now, they want to prove the copy of pointed family settlement by adducing secondary evidence of it. The execution and validity of deed of family settlement in question was denied by defendants No.4 to 8. The original of the agreement was stated to have been lost from them. Now, they want to prove the copy of pointed family settlement by adducing secondary evidence of it. The execution and validity of deed of family settlement in question was denied by defendants No.4 to 8. The trial Court dismissed the application of plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Act, by means of impugned order (Annexure P3). The main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to negate the plea of plaintiffs, was that although they have mentioned regarding the deed of family settlement dated 18.4.1995 in paras 2 and 7 of the plaint and annexed its copy therewith, but they have not alleged therein that the original deed of family settlement has been lost. Here, to me, the trial Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this respect. 7. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded the factum of indicated deed of family settlement in the plaint. There is no legal requirement that they have to mention the loss of family settlement in the plaint, as contrary observed by the trial Court. Not only that, they, in their application (Annexure P1), have specifically alleged that in spite of their best efforts, they could not trace the original deed of family settlement, which has been lost. They have annexed its copy with the plaint. Therefore, once the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in the plaint and have based their claim on the strength of pointed deed of family settlement, which was lost, in that eventuality, the production of secondary evidence to prove its copy is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties and is legal requirement of fair trial. The trial Court has committed material illegality and procedural irregularity causing grave injustice to the plaintiffs in this respect, which is not legally permissible. In this manner, all the essential ingredients for allowing secondary evidence, as contemplated u/s 65 of the Act are complete. If adequate opportunities are not granted to them, then, it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. 8. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted permission to plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence to prove the copy of indicated original deed of family settlement. If adequate opportunities are not granted to them, then, it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to their case. 8. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted permission to plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence to prove the copy of indicated original deed of family settlement. Moreover, no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiffs, particularly when, they could well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant direction. 9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P3) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to petitioners-plaintiffs to produce the secondary evidence to prove the pointed deed of family settlement. However, this would be subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by the plaintiffs to the contesting defendants. At the same time, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the contesting defendants. Needless to mention that the payment of costs would be a condition precedent for further prosecution of the suit. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————