IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4621 of 2007. [O&M] Date of Decision: 25th August, 2009. Dalbir Kaur @ Dalbiro Petitioner through Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate Versus Jasbir Singh & Another Respondents through Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Civil Judge [Junior Division], Tarn Taran whereby the respondent – defendants have been permitted to lead secondary evidence to prove execution of an alleged Will dated 2.11.1969, by Tara Singh son of Khushal Singh. The petitioner – plaintiffs are widow, daughters and sons of late Tara Singh son of Khushal Singh, whereas the respondent – defendants are sons of his maternal uncle. The petitioners have filed a suit for possession in respect of agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Naushera Pannu, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, which was admittedly owned by Tara Singh. It is also not in dispute that Tara Singh had migrated to Malaysia and was employed there in the Police Department. The agricultural land owned by Tara Singh has been mutated in favour of the respondent – defendants vide mutation No. 133 dated 13.3.1991 after the death of Tara Singh on 23.1.1980 on the basis of an alleged Will dated 2.11.1969, which was got registered on 22.03.1990. The petitioner – plaintiffs, on the other hand, have averred that Tara Singh never visited India in the year 1969 and was not in India on 2.11.1969, therefore, no occasion ever arose for him to execute the so-called Will relied upon by the respondent – defendants, which is a forged and fabricated document. The respondent – defendants on the other hand have come up with the plea that the original Will has been misplaced and they have sought to lead secondary evidence to prove its execution. Howsoever strong may be the circumstance to appreciate the petitioner's contention that Tara Singh did not visit India at the relevant time or executed the Will in dispute, yet the law on secondary evidence appears to have demarcated a clear distinction between the genuineness of the document sought to be produced on one hand and an opportunity to adduce secondary evidence on the other hand. In other words, mere permission to prove existence of a document by way of second evidence, does not and can not amount to its acceptance as a piece of evidence or acknowledgment of the contents thereof. Though the petitioner – plaintiffs have successfully made out a prima-facie case of strong suspicion against the genuineness of the Will, yet it is not the stage to express any opinion in relation thereto. However, the trial Court is likely to be confronted with certain issues which, it shall be obligated to respond while deciding the suit. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that though the respondent – defendants are permitted to lead secondary evidence to prove the alleged Will dated 2.11.1969, the trial Court shall specifically address to the following queries while considering the question of admissibility of the said Will or its contents in evidence:- [i] Did Tara Singh visit India in the year 1969 and was physically present on 2.11.1969? [ii] Was there any occasion for Tara Singh to execute the alleged Will dated 2.11.1969 in favour of the sons of his maternal uncle, ignoring his wife and children? [iii] Was there an occasion for Tara Singh to develop any love and affection for the respondent – defendants even when he spent his entire life in Malaysia while serving in the Police Department or as a retiree? [iv] Whether the respondent – defendants have genuinely lost the so-called Will or the plea taken by them is a devise to hide the original document so that its fabrication/forgery may not be proved? The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit and decide the same as early as possible but not later than one year. This shall be ensured by granting not more than 4-5 opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. In the event of adoption of any delaying tactics, the concerned party shall be burdened with exemplary costs. Disposed of accordingly. Dasti. August 25, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE