Secondary evidence under the Evidence Act may be sought again if a fresh application is properly supported.

Permission to adduce secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was refused because the application lacked an affidavit and contained vague averments, and no error was found in that refusal. The court, however, preserved the interests of justice by granting liberty to file a fresh application with a proper affidavit and full particulars showing why Section 65 is attracted. If such an application is filed within four weeks, the trial court must decide it afresh on its own merits, uninfluenced by the earlier rejection.

---

---

Issues: Whether permission to adduce secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should be granted, and whether the appellants should be allowed to file a fresh application with proper supporting material.

Analysis: The application for secondary evidence was rejected by the trial court for want of an affidavit and for vague averments, and the High Court did not interfere. In view of those defects, no error was found in the refusal. At the same time, to advance the interests of justice, liberty was given to file a fresh application supported by a proper affidavit and full particulars necessary to attract Section 65. If such an application was filed within four weeks, the trial court was required to decide it afresh on its own merits without being influenced by the earlier orders.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the original application was upheld, but the appellants were granted liberty to move a fresh application for secondary evidence.

---