In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7176 of 2008 Date of decision: April 30, 2009 Surjeet Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Paramjeet Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Assandh, disallowing the plaintiff-petitioner to lead secondary evidence by proving a Will dated 5.6.1966, on the ground that since the existence of the original Will, loss or possession of the original Will with the opposite party have not been prima facie established. Having scrutinized the order, the plaintiff has placed reliance upon a copy of the alleged will dated 5.6.1966, writing in Urdu and a Hindi translation thereof. The alleged Will also reveals that the copies of the same were also supplied to Pritam Singh, Surjeet Singh, Anup Singh sons of Lachhman Singh, Swaran Kaur and Sujan Kaur. The Will is also required to be proved by attesting witnesses. Certainly, the secondary evidence is to be allowed subject to the existence, loss and mode of its proof. The court before examining any of the witness could not presume if the plaintiff had failed to prove the loss of the document. It is only the person levelling the allegations can state if it has been lost or otherwise misplaced or is not within his reach for want of production from the opposite party. As such, rights of the plaintiffs could not be scuttled merely on the ground that the case was lingering on for a certain time. However, tenure of time could be fixed for closing the evidence. As such, I allow this petition subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and allowing of secondary evidence would be subject to all just exceptions including existence, loss or mode of proof etc. The petitioner Civil Revision No. 7176 of 2008 -2- *** will positively close the evidence including his evidence in rebuttal within three months from today. No further opportunity would be given. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save him huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondent may move to this court for recalling this order. April 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge