IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6062 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 28, 2011 Krishna Devi .. Petitioner Vs. Hem Chander and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The plaintiff- respondent (herein referred as, 'the respondent') sought permission to lead secondary evidence in order to prove registered Will No.3/125 dated 27.3.1981 on the ground that the original Will has been lost and remained un-traced. The trial court allowed the application. The plea of the petitioner/ defendant (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') is that before leading the secondary evidence, the petitioner was to prove the loss of Will and mere production of certified copy of the Will is hardly sufficient to prove its execution. The claim raised by the respondents is for declaration and permanent injunction claiming himself to be co-sharer in the agricultural land measuring 54 kanal and 6 marlas on the basis of the Will executed by Ram Kaur qua her entire property in his favour, therefore, on the death of Ram Kaur on 1.5.2005 he had become owner qua her share in the property. The case of the petitioner is that Ram Kaur had revoked the said Will and had executed another Will dated 22.1.2001 in her favour, therefore, petitioner had become the owner of the suit property. Arguments heard. Record perused. There is no dispute with the legal position that the secondary evidence may be given of existence condition or contents of the document in cases when the original has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot produce it in reasonable time. The present suit was filed on 31.3.2006. However, when the petitioner came to Civil Revision No. 6062 of 2009 -2- *** know that the original Will has been lost. The time gap between the claim raised and the application filed, cannot be said to be un-reasonable as to infer any mala fide on the part of the plaintiff. As regards the existence of the Will, the petitioner herself admits the existence of the Will and further sets up the plea that the said Will was revoked and a new Will came into existence purported to have been executed by Ram Kaur in her favour. As regards the loss of Will, the respondents have conveyed about the same by an affidavit containing these facts specifically that the original Will was registered and has been lost. Certified copy of the Will is being produced and the petitioner would prove the Will while leading required evidence. All the constituents for permitting the leading of secondary evidence stand proved. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. January 28, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge