R.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the Plaintiffs against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Ludhiana, dated January 23, 1975.
(2.) THE main controversy in the suit is regarding a will. The Plaintiffs alleged that the will was written in a Bahi and the same had been lost on December 27, 1972. It was further stated by them that the matter was reported to the police on the same day. They prayed that they may be allowed to adduce secondary evidence qua the will in dispute as it had been lost. The application was opposed by the Defendants. The learned Court held that under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence could be led when the original document had been destroyed or lost for any reason not arising from the fault of the party which wanted to adduce the secondary evidence. It further held that the will had been lost by Pritpal Singh Petitioner due to his own fault and, therefore, he could not be allowed to lead secondary evidence. Consequently the Court dismissed the application for secondary evidence. The Plaintiffs have come up in revision to this Court against the order of the trial Court. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is that the learned trial Court has misinterpreted Section 65(c) of the Act. According to him, in case the Court came to the conclusion that the will had been destroyed or lost for any reason, the Plaintiffs should have been allowed to lead secondary evidence. He argues that the words "not arising from his own default or neglect" in Section 65(c) do not govern the clause "when the original has been destroyed or lost". I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and find force in, them. In order to determine this question it is necessary to reproduce Section 65(c) which is in the following terms: 65. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases: (c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time.
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid section shows that it consists of two clauses. The first clause is an independent clause. In case a person seeking permission to produce secondary evidence is unable to produce the document, the same having been destroyed or lost, his case is governed by the first clause. The words "not arising from his own default or neglect' do not quality the first clause out the latter. The second clause is applicable when a party offering evidence is unable to produce the original within, a reasonable time for any other reason. The view taken by the trial Court is erroneous and is not warranted from a reading of the section.;