1. - Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 12.11.2007 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in relation to an agreement admittedly not carrying requisite stamp duty.

2. It remains settled proposition of law (vide State of Bihar v. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Brothers Ltd. : AIR 1962 SC 110 , Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao & Ors. : AIR 1971 SC 1070 and Shanker Lal & Ors. v. The Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Shahpura & Ors. : 2006 (3) RLW 2049) that if the original document is not carrying requisite stamp duty, permission to lead its secondary evidence cannot be granted for the fundamental reason that deficiency in stamp duty cannot be filled up on the copy of the document. The learned trial court has found that the agreement in question was allegedly executed on Rs.20/- stamp though as per Item No.5 (c) of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Stamp Act as applicable at the relevant time, such document was chargeable with stamp duty in an amount of Rs.100/-