1. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 25.02.2017 whereby the petitioner-tenant’s (hereinafter ‘tenant’) application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1872’) for leading secondary evidence qua a purported agreement dated 28.06.2006 between one M/s. JKJ and Sons Jewellers and the respondent-landlord (hereinafter ‘landlord’) has been dismissed.

2. I have heard the counsel for the tenant and the landlord and perused the impugned order dated 25.02.2017.

3. The trial court has recorded in the impugned order that an earlier application filed by the tenant under Order 11, 12 and 14 CPC, the landlord had denied the existence of the aforesaid agreement dated 28.06.2006 whereupon the said application was dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2016. Resultantly the agreement of which secondary evidence was sought to led was not in existence. It was noted that aside of the aforesaid, the application under Section 65 of the Act of 1872 was also not supported by an affidavit. Reliance was also placed by the trial court on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (2007) 5 SCC 730 Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobharani wherein it was held that a photoc