ORDER R. Kantha Rao, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.11.2013 passed in I.A. No. 740/2013 in O.S. No. 1/2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Warangal. 2. I have heard Sri Ch. Purnachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision petition may be stated as follows: "The respondent filed the suit against the petitioners for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,95,93,471/- pertaining to the works allegedly executed by the petitioners. In the suit the petitioners filed written statement along with a counter claim for Rs. 3,31,59,890/-. A rejoinder was filed by the respondent to the counter claim. In the course of the trial, the petitioners wanted to produce some photocopies of letters said to have been addressed by the 1st petitioner/1st defendant to the office of the respondent on different dates on the ground that the original copies were misplaced and were not traced out, the original letters are in the office of the respondent, they served notice as contemplated under Section 66 of the Evidence Act to the respondent to produce the original letters, but the respondent did not produce the said letters. Therefore, the petitioners filed the petition under section 65(a) of the Evidence Act to permit them to mark the photocopies of the letters as secondary evidence on their behalf. When the petitioners sought to mark the photocopies of the letters, the counsel for the respondent objected for marking of photocopies on the ground that the Xerox copies are not admissible in evidence." 4. According to the petitioners, the documents sought to be marked are letters addressed to the respondent company, the originals of which are with the respondents and the photocopies are maintained by the 1st petitioner as office copies. It is submitted by the petitioners that the respondent also referred and answered these letters in other communications and they are material documents and relevant to prove their case in the suit. Admittedly, the petitioners served a notice in Form-12 on the respondent to produce the original documents for which the respondent replied that the documents shown at Sl. Nos. 2 to 8 were not in its possession and Sl. Admittedly, the petitioners served a notice in Form-12 on the respondent to produce the original documents for which the respondent replied that the documents shown at Sl. Nos. 2 to 8 were not in its possession and Sl. No. 1 document was already marked as Ex. A12. 5. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that they had already stated in the written statement about the possession of these documents with the respondent and the original copies of the documents were not traced out in their office and they were lost. Prior to filing of the suit, the petitioners issued notice to the respondent to produce the original letters, but the respondent according to the petitioner, intentionally avoided to produce them. It is further submitted by the petitioners that Ex. A13 and Ex. A21 have already been referred to at Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 4 letters, considering their nature, they may be permitted to mark the photocopies of documents as secondary evidence in the course of trial. 6. The respondent opposed the petition on the ground that it had already informed the petitioners that the documents are not in its possession and the petitioners cannot take advantage of the situation, that there is no proper explanation from the petitioners as to what happened to the copies of letters which were maintained in their office in the ordinary course of business. 7. Adverting to the rival contentions, the learned trial Court expressed the view that the documents which relate to the commercial transactions of the petitioners ought to have been maintained by them in regular course, the explanation that they were not traced out and lost is neither sufficient nor convincing, as there was no proper answer from the petitioners as to why the original office copies have been lost and it seems that on account of their own default or neglect the petitioners failed to produce the documents and therefore, they cannot be permitted to adduce the Xerox copies of letters as secondary evidence, consequently, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present revision petition. 8. The point that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the order passed by the learned Court below having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case can be sustained. Point: 9. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present revision petition. 8. The point that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the order passed by the learned Court below having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case can be sustained. Point: 9. In H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (2011) 4 SCC 240 relied upon by both the counsel, the Supreme Court held as under: "Where original documents are not produced at any time, nor any factual foundation laid for giving secondary evidence, it is impermissible to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that alleged copy is in fact true copy of the original. Secondary evidence relating to contents of a document is inadmissible, until non-production of original is accounted for." 10. In J. Yashoda v K. Shobha Rani (2007) 5 SCC 730 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Secondary evidence, as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. However, if the original itself is found to be inadmissible through failure of the party who files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents. The conditions laid down in Section 65 must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in Section 65." 11. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore referred judgments, the issue involved in the present case is required to be examined. 12. The learned Court below seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners failed to lay factual foundation for giving secondary evidence as there was no proper explanation from them as to how and why the letters available in their office were lost or were not traced out. 12. The learned Court below seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners failed to lay factual foundation for giving secondary evidence as there was no proper explanation from them as to how and why the letters available in their office were lost or were not traced out. Therefore, the learned Court below arrived at the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioners reflects that they have set up a ground of their own default or neglect as the reason to permit to lead secondary evidence. 13. The opinion arrived at by the learned Court below does not seem to be correct. It is specifically mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioners that the respondent also referred and answered the very same letters in its communication to the petitioners. They have stated in the written statement about the possession of these documents with the respondent and that the copies of these documents were not traced out in their office and they were lost. They further stated that Ex. A13 and Ex. A21 have already referred to at Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 4 letters and therefore they may be permitted to mark the photocopies of letters as secondary evidence. 14. The petitioners complied with the requirement of issuing notice to the respondent as contemplated under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. Since the letters are part of correspondence between the petitioners and the respondent, it is not permissible for the respondent to argue that it is not legally bound to produce those documents if they are in its possession. 15. In the instant case, notwithstanding the notice issued by the petitioners, the respondent did not produce the letters on the ground that they were not available with it. It is to be borne in mind that where notice to produce document as contemplated under Section 66 of the Evidence Act is given, and there is non-compliance with the notice, striking of defence cannot be ordered, but secondary evidence of document can be permitted to be given. In the normal course, unless some motive is suggested to the party proposing to adduce secondary evidence to the effect that he made an application to adduce secondary evidence on false grounds, normally he can be permitted to lead secondary evidence. In the normal course, unless some motive is suggested to the party proposing to adduce secondary evidence to the effect that he made an application to adduce secondary evidence on false grounds, normally he can be permitted to lead secondary evidence. A bare statement made on affidavit by a party would be sufficient proof of fact that the document has been lost or not traced out. There can never be an absolute proof of fact that the document had in fact been lost. A statement of the person that the document was lost and in spite of his best efforts he could not trace out the document would be sufficient evidence of the fact that the document had been lost. 16. The learned Court below in my view has placed a high degree of proof on the petitioners in respect of the requirement under section 65(a) of the Evidence Act and the order passed by the learned Court below rejecting to receive the photocopies of letters as secondary evidence in my view is not appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mere admitting secondary evidence cannot relieve the petitioners from proving the contents of the documents and the respondent can always take objection as to the proof of the contents of the documents and their probative value. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Court below dated 01.11.2013 in I.A. No. 740/2013 in O.S. No. 1/2010 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. 18. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. Petition allowed