C.R.No.4695 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4695 of 2009. Decided on August 20, 2009. Gurmeet Kaur and another. .. Petitioners VERSUS Jasbir Singh and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide the impugned order, the defendants- respondents, have been permitted to lead secondary evidence, pertaining to a Will claimed by him to have been executed on 13.12.1973. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the deceased had died in the year 1972, prior to the said alleged will. It has been argued that unless and until the existence and loss is proved, permission to lead secondary evidence cannot be granted. I have heard counsel for the petitioners. The respondents-defendants have taken up a plea that the Will alleged to . . . 1 C.R.No.4695 of 2009 have been executed by Shingara Singh had been registered and that the original Will had been produced before the Revenue Authorities. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that this revision petition has been filed on the basis of mis-conception that the existence, loss, admissibility, relevancy, attestation and registration has been admitted by permitting the production of secondary evidence. It is made clear that the impugned order dated 20.07.2009, will not be deemed to prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs-petitioners, in any manner, and the order will not, at any stage, be presumed to have established the existence and loss of the document. The impugned order will not, in any manner, be taken to have impliedly permitted the presumption of existence, execution, loss of the alleged document. The defendants will have to prove that the Will actually was executed or existed. He will have to prove its loss and due attestation in accordance with law. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. It will be open to the petitioners-plaintiffs to establish that the case of the respondents does not fall under Section 65 (f) of the Indian Evidence Act, and that even the certified copy sought to be produced is a forged document. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 20, 2009. rka . . . 2 C.R.No.4695 of 2009 . . . 3