JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 8.5.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') has been accepted and the plaintiff has been permitted to lead secondary evidence qua agreement to sale. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Section 65 of the Act and the trial court was not justified in allowing the application without insisting on requirements as contained in Section 65 of the Act. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 4. From the averments made in the written statement, it is apparent that the execution of the agreement to sale has not been denied by the petitioner-defendant. The defence in the written statement pertains to non-compliance of material conditions of the agreement by the plaintiff. 5. An allegation has been made in the reply to the application under Section 65 of the Act regarding tampering with the evidence. However, no particulars whatsoever have been indicated in the application regarding the alleged tempering with and/or whether the same pertains to the document in question, as such, it cannot be said that the existence of the agreement was in question. 6. In view of the fact that the execution of the document has not been denied by the petitioner, there appears to be no substance in the plea raised by the defendant challenging the validity of order passed by the trial court permitting to lead secondary evidence. 7. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out. 8. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.