JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as well as an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to take on record secondary evidence. 2. Learned counsel submits that both the applications have been rejected by the court wrongfully. Learned counsel submits that relevance of the document and whether it is duly registered or not would have been only considered after the same is taken on record. Therefore, the application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) has wrongfully been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the application moved under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for treating the said documents as a secondary piece of evidence has also been wrongfully rejected. Petitioner had come out specifically with the case that he had misplaced the original agreement and therefore he produced photocopy of the original. I have considered the submissions. 4. This court finds that while passing the order dated 27.01.2021, the Trial Court has taken into consideration the reply filed by the plaintiff-non applicant who has submitted that they had never entered into any such agreement and there is no reason for bringing the said agreement on record as a secondary piece of evidence. The Trial Court after having considered the submissions found that so far as the agreement is concerned, the same was not filed in original. Photocopy of the same has been produced as a document which has been disallowed on the ground that no steps have been taken within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for producing the document as secondary piece of evidence. 5. Learned counsel relies on the judgments passed by this court in the cases of Rahim Bux Vs. Illahi Bux & Anr. AIR 1973 Rajasthan 294; Smt. Hukum Kanwar Vs. Yagya Narayan Singh 2018 (1) CDR 455 (Raj.); Smt. Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Kalu Ram & Ors. 2018 (1) CDR 456 (Raj.); Lalit Swami Vs. Union of India through General Manager North West Railway, Jaipur & Ors. 2017 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 800; Munna Lal Vs. Prem Bai & Ors. SB CWP No.8970/2008 and connected writ petitions decided on 06.01.2017 to submit that a document even if not registered can be considered for the purpose of relevance. 2018 (1) CDR 456 (Raj.); Lalit Swami Vs. Union of India through General Manager North West Railway, Jaipur & Ors. 2017 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 800; Munna Lal Vs. Prem Bai & Ors. SB CWP No.8970/2008 and connected writ petitions decided on 06.01.2017 to submit that a document even if not registered can be considered for the purpose of relevance. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Sahu Vs. Saulal & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6772/2019 to submit that even an unregistered document can be taken into consideration for collateral purposes. 6. This court also finds that the photocopy of the original document, which is said to have been found misplaced. Thus, it has been produced as a secondary piece of evidence before the same is taken on record, the application under Section 65 was required to be allowed. However, the Trial Court has rejected the application under Section 65. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners have not satisfied the court with regard to the preconditions as laid down under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the purpose of accepting the document as a secondary evidence. Neither any admission was made by the petitioners for procuring the original document nor any FIR or any document to show that the original has been misplaced. A mere bald statement by the petitioner would not be sufficient for accepting a photocopy of original document as a secondary piece of evidence. 8. In view thereof, the order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.