ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

Plaintiff-petitioner is in the revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial court dismissing an application for permission to lead secondary evidence so as to prove agreement to sell dated 21.12.2006.

Learned trial court has dismissed the application on the ground that a DDR through which the loss of document was reported to the police has not been produced. The court has further found that in the absence of any proof of loss of document secondary evidence cannot be allowed.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the order under challenge is erroneous.

Learned court has overlooked the fact that in the plaint the plaintiff had asserted agreement to sell which was not disputed in the written statement. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, plaintiff had also asserted that the original agreement to sell has been lost and the plaintiff has lodged a DDR, although details of the DDR were not given. Therefore, the foundation for leading secondary evidence had already been laid in the pleadings. While filing an application, the plaintiff submitted that the original agreement to sell has been lost and is not traceable despite best efforts. Hence, the a