IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1883 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 06, 2009 Asha Malhotra. … Petitioner Versus Dr. Ravi Tej Singh Sehra. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order, allowed a plea filed by the respondent – defendant for being allowed to adduce secondary evidence in respect of Will dated 10.10.1995. ` The grievance of the petitioner – plaintiff is that the plea under challenge could not have been allowed in the absence of proof that the alleged Will was indeed not available for production in the Court. C.R. No. 1883 of 2008 The learned Trial Court noticed in the impugned order itself that a similar plea between the parties had earlier been allowed by the Court in another case. It is on that premise that the learned Trial Court made the following observations:- “7. After hearing ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, I am of the considered view that the application in hand deserves to be accepted. The plaintiff in his evidence has placed on record copy of judgment dated 18.10.06 Ex.PX passed in case titled as Ravi Tej Singh Sehra Vs. General Public & others in which plaintiff in this case was also party. The contents of this judgment shows that a similar application for proving Will in question by way of secondary evidence was moved which was allowed by that Court. When in another case between the parties, the Will in question was liable to be proved by way of secondary evidence there is no occasion for this Court to decline the same relief which was allowed in another suit between the same parties. No doubt, in the reported case, it was observed that where the applicant was not shown to be in possession of original then admission of Photostat copy as secondary evidence was declined. However, in the present case a similar application was accepted in another case between the same parties then it would be not proper 2 C.R. No. 1883 of 2008 and just to decline the application in hand. In view of the above discussion, the application stands allowed.” In order to obtain the invalidation of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon (2007-3) The Punjab Law Reporter, 310 – Smt. J. Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Shobha Rani. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner only reiterates the established law that a party, before being allowed to adduce secondary evidence, must prove the existence and execution of the original document. In the present case, the facts are entirely different. A similar plea between the parties was concededly allowed by the Court in another litigation and that order has attained finality for want of challenge. In the view of things, the judicial pronouncement aforementioned would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petition shall stand dismissed. March 06, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3