JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally in view of short issue involved. 2. The petitioners are the original defendant nos. 3 to 10 in the suit that was filed by the respondent no.3 herein seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 22.11.1990. The defendant nos. 3 to 10 claim interest in the suit property pursuant to a separate agreement being entered into with the original plaintiff. After the pleadings were completed the plaintiff gave a notice to the Amendment as per Court's order dt. 10.3.2017 Sd/S. V. Purohit (C.F. Petitioner) defendant no.1 to produce original of the agreement dated 22.11.1990. There was no reply filed to that application nor was the original of the said agreement placed on record. On that basis the plaintiff sought permission to lead secondary evidence by filing an application below Exhibit 77. He sought to refer to a photocopy of the said agreement in question. By filing reply the defendant nos. 3 to 10 opposed the said application. It was their stand that the photocopy of the said agreement did not contain various relevant clauses and the map referred to therein did not form part of the said agreement. Hence, such permission was not liable to be granted. The trial Court by the impugned order has granted such permission. Being aggrieved the defendant nos. 3 to 10 have challenged the same in the present writ petition. 3. Shri S.V.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the photocopy of the agreement dated 22.11.1990 was sought to be relied upon without accounting for loss of the original document, said permission could not have been granted. There were various spaces kept blank in the said document and the map which was stated to be a part of the said agreement was not annexed to that document. Hence such incomplete document could not have been permitted to be proved by granting permission to lead secondary evidence. He sought to place on record the decision in Smt. J.Yashoda Vs. Smt. K.Shobha Rani, AIR 2007 SC 1721 in that regard. 4. On the other hand Shri N.H.Shams, learned counsel for the original plaintiff respondent no.3 herein supported the impugned order. According to him after giving a notice to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to produce the original document dated 22.11.1990 and as that notice was not responded to, the permission to lead secondary evidence was sought. 4. On the other hand Shri N.H.Shams, learned counsel for the original plaintiff respondent no.3 herein supported the impugned order. According to him after giving a notice to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to produce the original document dated 22.11.1990 and as that notice was not responded to, the permission to lead secondary evidence was sought. At this stage, when the requirements of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the said Act') were shown to have been complied with, it was not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. The defendant nos. 3 to 10 could always cross examine the witnesses concerned when the contents of the said document are sought to be proved. He therefore submitted that no interference was called. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the original plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to produce the original agreement dated 22.11.1990. There was no response to that notice and hence the plaintiff sought permission to lead secondary evidence. Such permission can be sought when after giving a notice to produce the relevant document, the same is not so produced or there is no proper reply given to such application. The stand taken by the defendant nos. 3 to 10 that the document in question was incomplete in view of various blank spaces therein and absence of any map can be considered when the witness who seeks to prove the contents of the document has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in that regard. It is not necessary at this stage to entertain those objections especially when such document has not yet brought on record in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Insofar as the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that by giving notice to produce the original document on the ground that it was in the custody of the defendant nos. 1 and 2, the provisions of Section 65 (A) of the said Act are found to have been complied with in that regard. Hence, the trial Court did not commit any error while it allowing the application that was filed below Exhibit 77. 6. By clarifying that it is open for the defendant nos. 1 and 2, the provisions of Section 65 (A) of the said Act are found to have been complied with in that regard. Hence, the trial Court did not commit any error while it allowing the application that was filed below Exhibit 77. 6. By clarifying that it is open for the defendant nos. 3 to 10 to raise all permissible objections to the evidentiary value of the document when its contents are sought to be proved, the writ petition is disposed of with no orders as to costs.