- (1.) Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners for setting aside impugned order dated 1.5.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the lower Court in a pending civil suit whereby an application moved by the respondents to lead secondary evidence has been allowed.
(2.) It is claimed that neither the original Will was ever produced before any authority nor the purported Will dated 13.9.1994 has any photograph of the executor thereon. It is claimed that even though the executor of the said Will was in litigation with respondent No.1 Rakesh Prashar, he never disclosed about the said Will. It is further averred that neither existence of the Will nor loss thereof has been proved on record and thus the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
(3.) Citing Gopal Singh Versus Shish Pal and ors., 2006 143 PunLR 393 and Sampat Singh Versus Bhagwanti, 2010 5 RCR(Civ) 74 , it is claimed that not only execution of the document sought to be proved by secondary evidence is to be established but the loss thereof is also to be proved. Will dated 13.9.1994 executed and registered by one Satkam Prashar in respect of booth No.3025-D, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh is sought to be proved by secondary evidence on the ground that the original had been misplaced and could not be traced despite best efforts made in this behalf.;