The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Court below dated 1-7-2002 in I.A.No.19125 of 2001 in O.S.No.12015 of 1996, in and by which the petitioner's application for marking xerox copies of various documents, such as, deed of hypothecation, memorandum, by which the title deeds were deposited by the first respondent, deed of guarantee etc., was rejected.

2. According to the petitioner, when there was shifting of the office premises, the aforesaid documents were misplaced, that the efforts to trace out the documents ended in vain and therefore, they should be permitted to file xerox copies. The Court below refused to accede to the request of the petitioner by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

3. On a reading of Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, I find that only in the event of the petitioner establishing to the satisfaction of the trial Court that the documents were either lost or destroyed, the petitioner could be permitted to mark the copies of those documents by way of secondary evidence. Reliance was placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in 1999 (1) CTC 6 (Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. v. Mac Industries Ltd.) and