Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Raj Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. Since all the parties are represented, hence as requested and agreed, I proceed to decide this appeal finally at this stage.

2. The substantial question of law, which has arisen in this case is:

A. Whether Lower Appellate Court was justified in admitting a document namely paper No. 7C/5, photocopy of a map, alleged to have been prepared by Lekhpal of Village Hindalpur having complied with requirement of Section 65/66 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Before Trial Court, aforesaid document was neither sought to be relied by plaintiff nor there was any occasion for it to look into the aforesaid document. The suit was dismissed by Trial Court vide judgment dated 21st July, 2011 deciding issues No. 2 and 3 against plaintiff and issue No. 1 in favour of defendants-appellants. However, the aforesaid judgment and decree of Trial Court has been reversed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16th January, 2003 passed by lower Appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, which is impugned in this appeal.

4. Lower Appellate Court has proceeded in a strange manner. On one hand, in para 19, it has discussed that Trial Court has not considered paper No. 109-C. If the aforesaid document was not admissible in evidence, even then findings ought to have been recorded by Trial Court in this regard but it had failed in both the ways that neither it has considered the said document nor it has discussed and held that aforesaid document was not admissible in evidence. Having said so, Lower Appellate Court itself has not discussed and considered aforesaid document and its consequence on the dispute in case but proceeded to look into a new document namely paper No. 7-C/5 which was an alleged revenue map of Village Hindalpur and a photocopy thereof was produced. Lower Appellate Court has held that since primary evidence was not adduced, the aforesaid document, as a secondary evidence, was admissible and in this regard has observed that plaintiff sought to obtain a certified copy of the aforesaid documents from revenue records but the same was not supplied by concerned authorities. The plaintiff also submitted an application No. 105-C before Trial Court requesting it to summon the aforesaid revenue map from the concerned Lekhpal but the application was rejected by Trial Court by order dated 11.2.2011. It is in these circumstances, plaintiff-respondent adduced copy of aforesaid map in the form of a photocopy/Xerox copy and the same was admissible being a secondary evidence under Section 65 read with Section 66 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1872”).

5. The question, whether Lower Appellate Court was justified in admitting aforesaid secondary evidence or not, inasmuch as, in paras 20 and 21, the aforesaid document itself has been held to be foundation for recording findings of reversal and in case such document as secondary evidence was inadmissible, entire edifies of judgment of lower appellate Court would fall.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent stated that document in question comes within the ambit of Section 65(c) of Act, 1872. Section 65 of Act, 1872 read as under:

Section 65—Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.—Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases :

(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power—

of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or

of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or

of any person legally bound to produce it,

and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it;

(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against w