JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The petitioner is tenant under the respondents. 2. Eviction Suit No. 07 of 1999 was instituted for ejection of the petitioner from the suit schedule premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. During pendency of the suit the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3903 of 2008 complaining harassment by his landlord who allegedly caused damage to the first floor due to which water was seeping to the ground floor, which was under tenancy of the petitioner. The writ petition stood allowed by an order dated 20.04.2011 with a direction to the defendant to examine his witnesses within one month and the trial Judge was directed to dispose of the eviction suit on or before 29.07.2011. The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 18.06.2011 for leading secondary evidence. Evidently, he has not complied this Court''s order for examining his witnesses within one month. The respondentlandlord has alleged that the petitioner filed frivolous applications only to delay the disposal of the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Postmaster, Ramgarh has stated that the original receipts have been destroyed, the defendant who is in possession of the photocopies of the same must be permitted to lead secondary evidence. 4. Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that all facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records may be proved by oral evidence. Section 60 mandates that oral evidence in all cases must be direct. Contents of the documents may be proved under Section 61 either by primary or by secondary evidence. What is primary evidence is dealt with under Section 62 and secondary evidence under Section 63. Section 65 lays down the conditions under which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Apparently, the procedure adopted by the petitioner for leading secondary evidence is not what has been prescribed under the Code. On merits, once the trial Judge has found that in its affidavit the Postmaster, Ramgarh has stated that original money order receipts are handed over to the sender and are not kept in the post office, the plea taken by the petitioner that in view of destruction of the original receipts he must be permitted to lead secondary evidence renders untenable. 5. 5. In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with order dated 04.07.2011 passed in Eviction Suit No. 07 of 1999 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. Order dated 20.09.2011 passed by this Court would disclose that the proceeding in the suit was not stayed by this Court. Accordingly, the trial Judge is directed to dispose of Eviction Suit No. 07 of 1999 within one month. 7. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to trial court.