JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2019 whereby learned trial Court has rejected the application filed under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, their forefather Gisiya purchased land admeasuring 79.5 ft. x 67.5 ft. vide sale deed dated 09.07.1954 and the defendant has encroached over the land area 16x47 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). The defendant filed the written statement and thereafter the issues have been framed. Now the case is fixed for plaintiffs' evidence. Before the evidence of the plaintiffs, they filed an application under section 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to file the photocopy of the photocopy of sale deed dated 09.07.1954 as a secondary evidence. According to the plaintiffs, a fire accident took place in the year 2000 and the original sale deed was destroyed in the said fire and the photocopy of the sale deed is available with his brother Suresh s/o Gisiya and they have a taken a photocopy of it, hence they may be permitted to produce it as secondary evidence. The said application was opposed by the defendants and the learned Court vide order dated 16.10.2019 has rejected the application, hence the present petition before this court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. According to the plaintiffs/petitioners the original of the sale deed was destroyed in fire, therefore, the photocopy can be permitted to be produced as secondary evidence as held by this Court in the case of Tawar Singh vs. Ranjit Singh 2001 1 MPWN 54 and Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Atal Sihari Tmrakar 2012 5 MPHT 160 . 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the photocopy of the original document can be taken into as secondary evidence subject to fulfilling the conditions of section 65 of the Evidence Act but the plaintiffs sought the permission to produce the photocopy of the photocopy of the original which is not permissible under the law and the Court below has not committed any error of law while rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs. 7. According to the plaintiffs the original sale deed was destroyed in the year 2000. 7. According to the plaintiffs the original sale deed was destroyed in the year 2000. Thereafter he filed a suit in the year 2017 but in the plaint he has not made averment about the fact that the original is not available with them. They have filed the suit on the basis of the photocopy. When the defendant has denied the sale deed, the plaintiffs came up with the photocopy of the photocopy of the original sale deed. Under section 65 the photocopy taken from the original can be accepted as secondary evidence by fulfilling certain conditions but the copy which is available with Suresh has not been tendered as second evidence, therefore, the Court has not committed any error while rejecting the application. The petition has no merit and substance and accordingly dismissed.