ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order passed on I.A. No. 2 filed under Sections 63 and 64 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to permit him to mark the photo copy of the sale deed dated 24.9.2005 by way of secondary evidence and admit the same in evidence in the interest of justice and equity. The said application was opposed. The trial Court has spent considerable time in considering the rival contentions, referring to the various provisions of the Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code and ultimately dismissed the said application. 2. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with proof of contents of documents. It provides that the contents of documents will be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Section 62 deals with primary evidence. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. Section 63 deals with secondary evidence. The primary evidence is the best evidence. Secondary evidence, as the name implies, assumes the existence of better evidence viz., the original. As a rule, secondary evidence is not admissible until the non-production of primary evidence is satisfactorily accounted for. Section 63 of the Act mentions five kinds of secondary evidence as provided in clause (1) to (5). The fact that secondary evidence is receivable is some times stated as forming an exception to the rule which provides that the best evidence alone can be given, but it is the logical outcome of it, for, as secondary evidence may only be given when the party tendering it has proved that primary evidence is not obtainable. Then the secondary evidence becomes the best which the Court can procure and consequently satisfies the rule. Section 65 of the Act deals with cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. 3. The principle is that so long as the original exists and is available, it being the best evidence must be produced. If it cannot be had on account of its loss, destruction, detention by the opponent or third person, who does not produce after notice physical or legal irremovability, or any other cause, secondary evidence is admissible. The rule is only another form of expression for the idea that when you loose the higher proof, you may offer the next best in your power. The rule is only another form of expression for the idea that when you loose the higher proof, you may offer the next best in your power. The rule does not mean that men's rights are to be sacrificed and their property lost because they cannot guard against events beyond their control. It only means that so long as the higher or superior evidence is within the possession of a party or may be reached by him, he shall give no inferior proof in relation to that. 4. Before a party is entitled to give other secondary evidence of the contents of the original, the non-production of the original must be satisfactorily accounted for. Therefore, when a party is not in possession of primary evidence and he wants to rely on secondary evidence, he is entitled to produce secondary evidence provided he satisfies the conditions stipulated in Section 65 of the Act. In order to satisfy the Court about the existence of conditions stipulated in Section 65, he has to adduce evidence in the witness box on oath. He has to account for non-production of the original, set out evidence laying a foundation to lead secondary evidence and then he has to lead secondary evidence. It is at that stage, the opposite party or the Court can object to the production of secondary evidence, if no proper foundation is laid. Where the originals were not produced at any time nor was any foundation laid for giving secondary evidence, certified copies are not admissible. When a party gives evidence, a certified copy without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, objection must be taken at the time of admission and will not be allowed at a later stage, for, if the objection had been taken then and there, the party affected could have made it and regularized the proceedings. All these has to be done when the party leading secondary evidence, is in the witness box. 5. Therefore, in the scheme of the code, no provision is made for filing an application invoking Sections 63 and 64 of the Evidence Act requesting the Court to permit him to adduce evidence. Such an application is not warranted and is not maintainable. 5. Therefore, in the scheme of the code, no provision is made for filing an application invoking Sections 63 and 64 of the Evidence Act requesting the Court to permit him to adduce evidence. Such an application is not warranted and is not maintainable. Unfortunately, the recent trend is such applications are filed, case is posted for filing of the objections by the opposite party, after objections are received, the arguments are heard and detailed order is passed, which takes considerable precious judicial time of the Court. It is yet another reason for the delay in disposal of the civil cases. This tendency is to be eschewed. Such applications should be dismissed at the threshold even without calling for any objection from the opposite party, much less passing a detailed order as was being done in this case. If a party wants to lead secondary evidence he has to enter the witness box, give evidence to show that why he could not produce primary evidence and after laying a foundation for non-production of primary evidence, he can produce secondary evidence. The tendency of filing application, receiving objections, hearing arguments and passing considered order is deprecated as much of the court's time is wasted in this exercise. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order is set aside. (ii) The application filed is also dismissed as not maintainable.