Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The grievance of the defendant is that the plaintiff seeks to let in additional evidence referring to his claim on the basis of an alleged compromise which was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff and had been referred to even in the plaint. The evidence must have been given by way of affirmation to what was contested in the plaint and it cannot be brought at the stage of rebuttal. Even as I find that the evidence cannot be brought by way of rebuttal and it could be only positive affirmation, I will find no reason to modify the order allowing for the plaintiff to bring the documentary evidence regarding the alleged compromise. To such an evidence given, the defendant will have an opportunity to give his own evidence subsequent to the plaintiff’s evidence.

2. If the plaintiff makes out a case for secondary evidence the defendant will have a right to cross-examine the plaintiff with reference to the document that is brought as secondary evidence and elicit any factor which is relevant to prove that there was no case made for application of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is too well laid a proposition of law that mere exhibition of a document does not render proof of the same and even an issue of whether secondary evidence was possible or not could be a matter which could be elicited in cross-examination and be made a subject for argument at the relevant time. I find no reason to interfere with the order permitting secondary evidence to be brought.

3. With liberty to the defendant in the manner referred to above, the order already passed is confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.