JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. dated 18.3.2005, passed in Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2002. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), has instituted suit for recovery against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). According to the plaintiff, the defendant had good relations with her husband Sh. Gurmit Singh. The defendant had borrowed certain money from her husband. The money was advanced to the defendant in the presence of respectable persons of the area. He promised to repay the loan money in a short time. As he did not refund the money, her husband demanded it from him. The demand so made offended the defendant who adopted indifferent and callous attitude towards her and her husband. In order to defame them, the defendant made a false and frivolous complaint to the Forest Department. The forest officials raided and searched their premises in the presence of the villagers and relatives etc. But, nothing incriminating was recovered. The defendant has also filed complaint on 15.6.1998 against one Sh. Makhan Singh, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Garli to the Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hamirpur. In the complaint, false and defamatory imputations were made against the plaintiff that she is not having good character and Makhan Singh regularly visits her house. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant denied borrowing the money from her husband with promise to repay it after some time. He denied any grudge against the plaintiff and her husband. He also denied having leveled false allegations that plaintiff was not having good character and Makhan Singh visits her house regularly. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Barsar, framed the issues on 30.5.2000. The suit was decreed with costs vide judgment dated 17.6.2002 for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization. The defendant, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.6.2002. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur, allowed the same on 18.3.2005. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 28.9.2005: “1. The defendant, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.6.2002. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur, allowed the same on 18.3.2005. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 28.9.2005: “1. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in drawing adverse inference against the defendant-respondent when he neither appeared in the witness box nor examined any other witness in his behalf? 2. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court could have held the documents Ext. PW-2/A to Ext. PW-2/D to be not legally proved when the defendant-respondent had itself not challenged the exhibition of such documents in his grounds of appeal preferred before the Lower Appellate Court? 3. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court could have held the documents Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/C to be not duly exhibited and proved, especially when the defendant-respondent himself did not challenge the execution of such documents? 4. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court below has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act?” 6. Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that adverse inference should have been drawn against the defendant for not appearing in the witness box. He then contended that documents Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/D were duly proved by the appellant. He lastly contended that provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act have been wrongly complied with by the learned first Appellate Court. 7. Since all the substantial questions of law are inter-connected, hence are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of evidence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 9. PW-1 Sagar Singh Rana testified that he was posted as Range Forest Officer, Flying Squad, Hamirpur. He has not brought the original record since the same was not available in the office. 10. PW-2 Ashok Kumar Setia has brought the record and proved Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/C i.e. copies of complaint dated 15.6.1998, 21.3.1998 and 16.11.1998. He also brought the original enquiry report, the copy of which is Ext. PW-2/D. 11. PW-3 Makhan Singh testified that he remained posted at Garli from October, 1996 to May, 1999. He knows the parties. 10. PW-2 Ashok Kumar Setia has brought the record and proved Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/C i.e. copies of complaint dated 15.6.1998, 21.3.1998 and 16.11.1998. He also brought the original enquiry report, the copy of which is Ext. PW-2/D. 11. PW-3 Makhan Singh testified that he remained posted at Garli from October, 1996 to May, 1999. He knows the parties. The plaintiff had a loan account in the bank where the defendant was the landlord of the building from which the bank operated. The defendant lodged complaints Ext. PW-2/A and PW-2/B with his superiors. On enquiry, those complaints were found to be false and frivolous. 12. PW-4 Dhundha Singh Forest Guard has proved enquiry report Ext. PW-4/A. 13. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-5. She testified that she and Gurmit Singh were married 18 years ago. She had two children. Her husband is employed at Nalagarh. The defendant had cordial relations with her husband. About 3 years ago, the defendant borrowed Rs. 65,000/- from her husband. No writing in this regard was executed. When she asked the defendant to return the loan amount, the latter started defaming them. Firstly, the defendant lodged a complaint against them with the forest department that they have stolen timber. The forest officials raided and searched their premises. Nothing incriminating was recovered. After that defendant filed a complaint before the bank authorities wherein he averred that the Bank Manager visits her house and she is a lady of loose character. The bank people too conducted the enquiry and asked her as to whether Makhan Singh comes to her house. She denied the said fact. She did not have illicit relations with Makhan Singh. In her cross-examination, she admitted that defendant has filed case against her and Makhan Singh. She was house wife. None except her and her husband were present at that time when money was advanced on 13.4.1998 to the defendant. She has admitted that he had filed a suit for recovery against them. 14. PW-6 Gurmit Singh is the husband of the plaintiff. He has corroborated the statement of PW-5 Piaro Devi. He could not produce any record proving that he had withdrawn Rs. 60,000/- from the funds of the Company. 15. The plaintiff has failed to prove that a sum of Rs. 65,000/- was advanced to the defendant. No receipt to this effect was produced before the Court. Mr. He has corroborated the statement of PW-5 Piaro Devi. He could not produce any record proving that he had withdrawn Rs. 60,000/- from the funds of the Company. 15. The plaintiff has failed to prove that a sum of Rs. 65,000/- was advanced to the defendant. No receipt to this effect was produced before the Court. Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/C. The plaintiff has relied upon three complaints Ext. PW-2/A dated 15.6.1998, Ext. PW-2/B dated 21.3.1998 and Ext. PW-2/C dated 16.11.1998. These are merely photo copies from the official record produced by PW-2 Ashok Kumar, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Hamirpur. PW-2 Ashok Kumar has admitted that the original complaints dated 15.6.1998 and 16.11.1998 were not available in their record as those were addressed to Zonal Office, Chandigarh. There were only photo copies of the complaints in their records. The receiving of Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/C tendered by Ashok Kumar PW-2 was objected to. The objection was allowed and the documents were ordered to be taken on record with costs of Rs. 100/- and it was accepted by defendant. However, the statement dated 16.9.2000 of PW-2 Ashok Kumar does not specify clearly what precisely was objection of the defendant. Whether it was on account of mode of proof or late production of documents or admissibility of the documents. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove the complaints by way of preliminary evidence. Merely marking of documents as Exhibits would not absolve the parties to prove execution of the same. 16. The plaintiff has not invoked Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for summoning the original from the authority possessing it or by showing that the original was destroyed or lost, was not easily movable or that original was a public document or certified copy of the document was admissible or that original consisted of numerous accounts which was convenient to be transported to the Court. 17. The learned District Judge, has rightly come to the conclusion that these documents i.e. PW-2/A to PW-2/C were neither primary, nor in the form of secondary evidence. These documents were not admissible in evidence unless and until the case was governed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. There was no evidence to conclude that complaints Ext. PW-2/A to Ext. These documents were not admissible in evidence unless and until the case was governed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. There was no evidence to conclude that complaints Ext. PW-2/A to Ext. PW-2/C were actually written by defendant and they scandalized the plaintiff. 18. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others, vrs. Yelamarti Satyam and others, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1865 , have held as follows: “15. The plaintiffs wanted to rely on Exhibits A-12 and A-13, the day book and the ledger respectively. The plaintiffs did not prove these books. There is no reference to these books in the judgments. The mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. It is common place to say that the negative cannot be proved. The proof of the plaintiffs' books of account became important because the plaintiffs' accounts were impeached and falsified by the defendants' case of larger payments than those admitted by the plaintiffs. The irresistible inference arises that the plaintiffs' books would not have supported the plaintiffs.” 19. The plaintiff was required to prove his case and merely the absence of defendant appearing as witness had no bearing on the outcome of the civil suit and no adverse inference can be drawn against him. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. CMP No. 539 of 2005. 20. The plaintiff has preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence. The statement relied upon by the plaintiff Annexure A-1 is dated 7.8.2000. The purpose of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is not to fill up the lacunae. It is not believable that the plaintiff did not know about the statement recorded way back on 7.8.2000 in case No. 25/1999 titled as Anant Ram vrs. Makhan Singh. The plaintiff ought to have been vigilant while leading his evidence. Moreover, the plaintiff has not given the date and the year when he came to know about this statement. The plaintiff has failed to prove that despite exercise of due diligence Ext. PW-2/B could not be produced before the appellate Court. Moreover, PW-3 Makhan Singh has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the present matter. Moreover, the plaintiff has not given the date and the year when he came to know about this statement. The plaintiff has failed to prove that despite exercise of due diligence Ext. PW-2/B could not be produced before the appellate Court. Moreover, PW-3 Makhan Singh has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the present matter. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. 21. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.