ORDER 1. The matter comes up on the misc. application (IA No.1/2022) filed by the petitioner for dispensing with service on respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9 were not present before the Trial Court and as such, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them on 29.10.2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice, service on respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9 may be dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel Mr.Jayant Kumar Jain is appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 and submits that he has no objection, if service on respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9, is dispensed with. 5. In view of the above, this Court, allows, the application (IA No.1/2022) filed by the petitioner for dispensing with service on respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9. Accordingly, service on respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9 is dispensed with. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No.120/2000, whereby, application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereafter 'the Evidence Act') for leading secondary evidence, has been dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter 'the Act of 1950') along-with the plaint, the petitioner had submitted photostat copy of the rent receipts. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff had averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was a Trust and it rented out the premise to one Shri Paremshwar Lal Kedia, who is husband of defendant-respondent No.2 and father of defendant- respondent Nos.3 to 8 in the suit. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff in the suit had specifically pleaded that it had issued the receipts of rent to the defendant No.3 & other defendants and at the time of issuing the receipts, signatures of tendering rent were also obtained at the counter copy of the receipt, whereby landlord-tenant relation had been established. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff in the suit had specifically pleaded that it had issued the receipts of rent to the defendant No.3 & other defendants and at the time of issuing the receipts, signatures of tendering rent were also obtained at the counter copy of the receipt, whereby landlord-tenant relation had been established. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendants had paid rent upto 31.01.1984 and from 01.02.1984 rent was not paid till filing of the suit and as such, suit was filed on various grounds including default in payment of rent. 13. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court on the basis of pleadings, framed issues on 12.07.2007. 14. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of leading evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, on the ground that photostat copies of rent receipts were produced from photostat machine from original receipts and original receipts had been lost, therefore, permission was sought for receiving the photostat rent receipt as secondary evidence. 15. Learned counsel submitted that the defendant had filed reply to the said application and stated that rent receipts filed by the petitioner were false and fabricated and they were also not duly stamped and not compared with the original receipts and further, denied any payment of rent and existence of rent receipts. 16. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below by impugned order dated 24.09.2018, has dismissed the application on the ground that endorsement on receipt was not made, the receipts were not compared with the original or attested by Notary or by Authorized Officer and such permission has been declined to exhibit the rent receipts. 17. Learned counsel submitted that application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, had clearly mentioned that plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit had given the list of photostat copies of the receipts i.e. total 5 receipts and photostat copies of receipts were done by the process of photostat machine and all the said receipts, were not filed in original form, as the original receipts were sent for book binding and the photostat copies of receipts, were relevant for the purpose of leading evidence. 18. 18. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner specifically mentioned in Para 3 of the application that in spite of all efforts being made by the petitioner-plaintiff, the original receipts of rent was not traceable and as such, permission was sought to lead secondary evidence. 19. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has wrongly come to conclusion that the photostat receipts were of the year 1983-84 and suit was filed in the year 2000 and such photostat copies of receipts were sought to be produced at later stage and further, there was no endorsement of any kind in the receipts. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the issue with regard to leading secondary evidence, is well settled by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. Learned counsel places reliance on the following judgments;- 1. Rakesh Mohindra Vs. Anita Beri & Ors. reported in [ (2016)16 SCC 483 ]. 2. Rajeev Khanna urf Raju Vs. Smt. Anita Tripathi & Anr. reported in [2018(1) DNJ 2020]. 3. Rupinder Kaur Vs. SarjiwanKumar & Anr. reported in [2015(2) PLR 816]. 4. Jawahar Lal Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors. reported in [2014(2) Law Herald 1815]. 21. Learned counsel on the strength of said judgments submitted that the general rule for leading evidence is by giving primary evidence and if the primary evidence is not available, secondary evidence is being resorted by the parties. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the original documents are lost and not available with full care and diligence of the party concerned, the secondary evidence as per Section 65 of the Evidence Act, is permissible. 23. Learned counsel Mr.Jayant Kumar Jain is appearing for the respondents-defendants and submits that the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. 24. Learned counsel submitted that in the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, it was nowhere explained that the original receipts were lost or not found and only on an averment that in spite of search being made, the original receipts were not traceable and as such, the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff could not have been allowed. 25. 24. Learned counsel submitted that in the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, it was nowhere explained that the original receipts were lost or not found and only on an averment that in spite of search being made, the original receipts were not traceable and as such, the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff could not have been allowed. 25. Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below has rightly come to conclusion that if suit was filed in the year 2000, there was no reason to place reliance and to lead secondary evidence or to produce the photostat receipts of rent of the year 1983-84. 26. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments;- 1. Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani reported in [AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1721]. 2. Gordhan Lal Agarwal Vs. Mali Ram Modi & Anr. reported in 2013(4) RLW 3377 (Raj.). 3. Ram Pratap Vs. Nar Singh Lal (43) reported in [RLW 1990(1) 133]. 27. Learned counsel on the strength of said judgments submitted that the secondary evidence-photostat copies can only be admitted, if the documents are compared with the original and conditions, as provided under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act, are required to be satisfied. 28. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 29. This Court finds that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act had clearly mentioned that the petitioner-plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit, had also annexed photostat copies of the receipts along-with the list of documents. 30. The said application further makes a specific averment that photostat receipts of rent were not traceable, as the other receipts were said to be sent for book binding and petitioner in spite of making all the efforts, was not able to get the original receipts and as such, he sought permission to lead secondary evidence by producing photostat copies of the receipts. 31. This Court further finds that the provision contained in Section 63 of the Evidence Act, provides for and defines the 'Secondary Evidence' and as per sub-Section (2) of Section 63, if the copies of any document are made from the original by mechanical process which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, such kind of secondary evidence is permissible in the eyes of law. 32. This Court further finds that Section 65 of the Evidence Act in clause (c) provides that Secondary Evidence may be given with respect to contents of a document, if the original has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from its own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. 33. This Court, considering the facts which have come on record, as per pleadings of the party, finds that if the suit which was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in 2000, had mentioned about the photostat copies of the receipts and as such, the right occasion arose to the petitioner to move application to lead secondary evidence, after framing of the issue. 34. This Court, considering the facts of the present case, finds that the opportunity of leading secondary evidence was rightly availed by the petitioner, by moving an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 35. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Mohindra Vs. Anita Beri (supra) has laid down that if a party wishes to lead secondary evidence, the Court is obliged to examine the probative value of the document produced in the Court or their contents and decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence and at the same time, the party has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. The Apex Court has further diluted on this issue and has held that it is equally well settled that neither mere admission of a document in evidence amounts to its proof nor mere making of an exhibit of a document dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. The Apex Court has also found that even if signatures in some of the documents were not legible and visible, the same cannot be a ground to reject the secondary evidence. 36. Learned counsel Mr.Jayant Kumar Jain has raised the objection while drawing attention of this Court towards the photostat copies of receipts which have been filed by the petitioner along-with this petition and with the plaint before the Trial Court too. 37. 36. Learned counsel Mr.Jayant Kumar Jain has raised the objection while drawing attention of this Court towards the photostat copies of receipts which have been filed by the petitioner along-with this petition and with the plaint before the Trial Court too. 37. Learned counsel Mr.Jayant Kumar Jain submitted that some of the receipts even do not have signatures or dates and as such, the photostat copies are of no significance even for the purpose of secondary evidence. 38. This Court is afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondents. The probative value/credence of the evidence is not to be examined while considering the application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. 39. This Court further finds that in the case of Rupinder Kaur Vs. Sarjiwan Kumar (supra) the parameters of leading secondary evidence has been laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Court has opined that the deed writer's register entry is only a corroborative piece of evidence to prove the execution of the rent note. The photo copy of the rent note can be proved by way of leading secondary evidence, if such secondary evidence is not allowed, then the party concerned will suffer loss and as such, right to lead secondary evidence even of deed writer's register entry was found to be permissible. 40. The reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Jayant Kumar Jain in the case of Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani (supra), therein, the Apex Court has considered the scope of Section 65. The Apex Court has found that Section 65 permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of any document but the condition laid down in Section 65 must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. The Apex Court further has observed that secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner, as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in Section 65. 41. The Apex Court further has observed that secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner, as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in Section 65. 41. This Court, considering the facts of the present case, finds that the petitioner has clearly mentioned the requirement of sub-Section (c) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act that the original document was not in his possession and in spite of his all efforts, the same could not be produced and further reason was given that receipts were sent for book binding and as such, the same were not available with the plaintiff. 42. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 65 of the Evidence Act is allowed. 43. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. 44. The Trial Court is directed to proceed further in the matter.