JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure P-1), whereby, application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead secondary evidence with regard to partnership deeds dated 29.01.1976 and 07.07.1990, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the partnership deeds sought to be proved on record were very necessary for the just decision of the case. In fact, the original partnership deeds had been lost by the income tax lawyer of the petitioner. 3. In the present case, respondent No.1 has filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 to 8 from the premises in question. At this stage, the case is listed before the trial court for evidence of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8. An application was moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence to prove the partnership deeds dated 29.01.1976 and 07.07.1990. The case of the petitioner is that the said partnership deeds in original had been lost, as they had been given to the income tax lawyer and thereafter, they could not be traced. The learned trial court, while dismissing the application, has rightly held that while filing the reply by the respondents, they had not stated that the original partnership deeds had been lost. Further it had not been explained as to who was in possession of the original partnership deeds and had handed over the same to the income tax lawyer as there were three partners of the partnership firm. In these circumstances, the learned trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to explain as to when the original partnership deeds had been lost and, thus, rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead secondary evidence. 4. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 5. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------