JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 12.2.16 passed by the Civil Judge, Nawa, in Civil Original Case No.19/13, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act”) for taking the photostat copy of agreement to sell on record, as secondary evidence, stands rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per provisions of Section 63, the photo copy of a document, which is made from the original by mechanical process, falls within the definition of secondary evidence and the same is admissible in evidence by virtue of provisions of Section 65(c) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has come with the specific case that the original agreement to sell has lost and thus, the Court below has erred in observing that the petitioner has not stated that the photo copy sought to be produced is prepared by original. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the Court below without appreciating the provisions of law in correct perspective, deserves to be set aside and the application preferred by the petitioner, seeking leave to produce secondary evidence, deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 4. Section 65 of Act, enumerates the exceptional circumstances wherein, the secondary evidence relating the documents is admissible. As per clause (c) of Section 65, the secondary evidence of a document can be permitted when the original has been destroyed or lost or when party offering evidence of the contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his default or neglect produce it in reasonable time. 5. Indisputably, the suit has been filed by the petitioner claiming the right on the strength of agreement to sell dated 20.7.09 but, neither the original nor the photostat copy thereof was placed on record by the petitioner before the Court at the time of presentation of the plaint as mandated by Order 7, Rule 14 (1) CPC. That apart, in the application preferred, it is nowhere stated that the photostat copy sought to be produced on record, was made by its original and the same is true reproduction thereof. That apart, in the application preferred, it is nowhere stated that the photostat copy sought to be produced on record, was made by its original and the same is true reproduction thereof. It is settled law that before admitting the photostat copy of the document as secondary evidence, the existence of the original must be proved. Further, in case where there was no proof of accuracy of the photostat copy or of its having been compared with or being reproduction of original, it cannot be considered as secondary evidence. In this view of the matter, the Court below has committed no error in observing that the document sought to be produced cannot be considered to be secondary evidence. 6. Further, a perusal of the photo copy of the agreement to sell sought to be produced on record, shows that its original, if any, was not sufficiently stamped. As per the mandate of provisions of Section 39 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, no instrument chargeable with the duty under the said Act, is permissible to be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of the parties authority to receive the evidence unless, such instrument is duly stamped. Thus, when the original agreement to sell, if produced, was not admissible in evidence, the question of photostat copy thereof being admitted in evidence, does not arise. 7. In view of discussion above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Court below, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.