JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') has been rejected by the trial court. 2. The petitioner filed a suit seeking specific performance of the contracts dated 30.04.1971 and 10.04.1996 pertaining to the land situated at Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar; during the pendency of the suit, an application under Section 65 of the Act was filed, inter alia, with the averments that the agreement dated 30.04.1971 was executed between Purkha Ram - husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant No. 2 in favour of Mukhtyar Singh - father of the plaintiff; the said agreement has been misplaced by him and despite a lot of efforts the same has not been found; photo copy is on the record, which the petitioner wants to exhibit as secondary evidence; exhibiting the said agreement dated 30.04.1971 is necessary; a reference to the said agreement dated 30.04.1971 has been made in the subsequent agreement dated 10.04.1996 and based on the agreement dated 30.04.1971, the proceedings for regularization in plaintiff's favour took place and composition fees and interest was deposited; the regularization has been done by Additional Collector, Suratgarh by order dated 10.09.2001; there is no possibility of the agreement dated 30.04.1971 being fraudulent or concocted; ultimately, it was prayed that the agreement be permitted to be exhibited by way of secondary evidence. 3. 3. A reply to the application was filed by the respondents-defendants; it was contended that the agreement dated 30.04.1971 was incorrect and false; a document pertaining to the year 1971 was sought to be produced before the Court and was sought to be enforced after 44 years, which is not justified; the agreement is not clear and its writing cannot be understood and, therefore, the photo copy cannot be exhibited; the plaintiff has failed to indicate as to how and where the agreement dated 30.04.1971 was lost and whether any report was lodged in this regard and based on averments made in the application the photo copy cannot be exhibited; it was further contended that if in the agreement dated 10.04.1996 the earlier agreement dated 30.04.1971 has been confirmed, there was no reason to exhibit such an old unclear document; the document was not readable and was not a certified copy and such a unreadable document cannot be exhibited as its contents cannot be read and the signatures/thumb impressions are also not clear and, therefore, such old and unreadable document cannot be exhibited; ultimately, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that a look at the agreement dated 10.04.1996 indicates that there is reference of an agreement dated 24.01.1972 and there is no reference to agreement dated 30.04.1971; in the application and in the suit it has not been indicated as to when and where the document was lost and no indication has been given regarding bona fide efforts on part of the plaintiff to search the document; the application was not supported by any affidavit and it has not been cleared as to from where the petitioner got the photo copy; merely by indicating that the document was lost cannot give right to the party to lead secondary evidence and, consequently, dismissed the same. 5. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner; it was submitted that the petitioner had before hand in the plaint indicated that the agreement dated 30.04.1971 was lost; the indication of date in the subsequent agreement dated 10.04.1996 was incorrect; it was further submitted that the defect of non-filing of affidavit was curable and the matter could be remanded back to the trial court for the said purpose. 6. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in Onkar Lal v. UIT, Udaipur & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 81/2005 decided on 28.01.2009 and Maharaj Kumar Chand v. Jodhpur Film Vitrak Sahakari Samiti Ltd., 1993 (3) WLC (Raj.) 66 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Khemraj : (2000) 9 SCC 241 . 7. Vehemently opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a bare look at the document produced by the petitioner as Annexure-2 with the writ petition would reveal that not a word can be read from the said document; further, the fundamental requirements as contained in Section 65(c) of the Act regarding the document having been destroyed or lost, have not been accounted for by the petitioner; it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to lead secondary evidence qua a document whose existence itself is doubtful and, consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 9. A bare look at the document (Annexure-2) sought to be produced by the petitioner by way of secondary evidence reveals that the same is absolutely illegible, nothing can be deciphered from the said document except few words here and there; the petitioner himself has filed a typed copy of the said document and for a three pages document only few lines have been produced as typed copy and, even within those few lines, repeatedly the word ^^vifBr^^ ' has been indicated; such nature of document, which is sought to be produced as secondary evidence, apparently cannot be permitted so as to leave the parties to be in the dark about the contents itself. 10. 10. The provisions of Section 65 of the Act provides that if the permission has been granted under the said provisions, the contents of the documents are admissible, when the contents itself are illegible, there is no question of grant of permission for such a document. 11. Besides the above, the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the agreement dated 10.04.1996 refers to a document dated 24.01.1972 and the document sought to be produced was dated 30.04.1971 and, therefore, the plea as taken by the petitioner for production of the document has no basis. 12. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the date in the agreement dated 10.04.1996 was incorrect, also appears to be a after thought, inasmuch as, no such plea has been taken in the plaint. 13. The judgments in the case of Onkar Lal (supra) & Maharaj Kumar Chand (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner have apparently no application to the facts of the present case. 14. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khema Ram (supra) is concerned, in view of the nature of document, even if the petitioner is granted permission to file affidavit, the same cannot cure the other deficiencies as noticed hereinbefore. 15. In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.