I 1. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Ramakrishna Constructions (1 supra), in para 15, this Court has held that a bare statement made on affidavit by a party would be sufficient proof of fact that the document has been lost or not traced out. In the present case also, the petitioners-defendants have made a reference ol these documents in the written statement and in the aftrdavit it is clearly rnentioned that all these invoices as rnentioned in the tabular tbrm in the aflldavit, were given to the Police, but thc Police lailed to return the same and accordingly requested to perrrit for production of secondary evidence. It appears, the Court below has placed a high degree ofproofon the petitioners in respect of requirement under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act, thereby, passed the order impugned rejecting to receive the photocopies of the invoices as secondary evidence, which, in my view, is not appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mere filing or admitting secondary evidence in respect of the invoices cannot relieve the petitioner-defendant frorn proving the contents of the said documents. The respondent-plaintiff can always take an objection as to the proof of contents of the documents and their probative value. In that view of the matter, in my
