ORDER
Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by the Plaintiff challenging the order of the learned District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam rejecting the request of the petitioner/ plaintiff to permit him to file the photostat copy of the agreement of sale as secondary evidence. Normally no doubt photostat copy cannot be admitted in evidence. But in this case the original agreement of sale was sent by the court to the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam to find out the valuation of the suit property and to impound the document. The Sub-Registrar, after issuing so many reminders, reported to the Court that the document was lost.
2. Thereupon the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 94/89 requesting the Court to permit him to file the photostat copy of the agreement of sale as secondary evidence. Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act empowers a party to let in secondary evidence:
“When the original has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time.”
In this case there is no doubt that the original document was filed by the party into the Court. The Court in its turn sent it to the Sub-Registrar Ibrahimpatnam for ascertaining the value of the property for the purpose of impounding the document and levying the stamp duty and penalty. If the original document sent to the Sub-Registrar has been lost, the plaintiff cannot be blamed nor should he suffer the consequence of its loss.
3. Section 65(c) is enacted only to meet such contingencies. It cannot be said that the loss of document is attributable to the plaintiff’s default or negligence. If so, the secondary evidence, namely, the xerox copy available with him cannot be shut out from evidence.
4. The revision petition is therefore allowed on condition of the petitioner undertaking to pay the requisite Stamp duty and penalty which is payable by Mm on the document. Had the original document been available with plaintiff, he would have been permitted to mark the document only on payment of stamp duty and penalty and he cannot escape that liability merely because the original was lost and he is permitted to file the secondary evidence. There shall be no order as to costs.