Ranawat, J—In the second appeal the appellant has filed an application for permission to lead secondary evidence regarding the document which is the basis of the suit on the ground that the original document was lost while it was in the custody of the trial court after its evidence had been produced by the plaintiff and at the time when the defendant was leading his evidence and the plaintiff under the assumption that original bad been proved did not think it necessary at that time to lead secondary evidence of the contents of that document.

2. The respondent has filed a reply to the petition of the appellant denying the fact that the document was lost while in the custody of the court. He has also stated that the document in question was unstamped and as such no secondary evidence should be permitted regarding its contents. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Champalal vs. Pannalal (1).

3. The counsel of the plaintiff filed an affidavit in the trial court that he had produced the document in question in the court and that it was not returned to him thereafter and remained in the custody of the court. The report of the Ahalmad, which is on the record of the tria

Click Here to Read the rest of this document