V.S. Aggarwal, J.@mdashThe present revision petition filed by Surjit Kaur is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gidderbaha dated 20.2.1996. By virtue of the impugned order the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner submitted an application seeking per- mission to produce secondary evidence with respect to the alleged will dated 5.4.1991. It had been asserted that a will was executed by Bakhtarwar Singh in favour of Makhan Singh and Surjit Kaur. The same had been produced when the proceed- ings took place for mutation before the Revenue officer who had sanctioned the mutation on 26.9.1995. The said will was stated to have been retained by the Revenue Officer. The said will was stated to be not traceable and thus permission was claimed to lead secondary evidence. Notice of the application had been issued to the respondents. The respondents contested the same and denied the assertions. It was pointed that the alleged will was fictitious and a forged document.
3. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties'' counsel dismissed the application holding that there was no such will on the file of the revenue authorities. The trial Court further recorded that patently no such unregistered will had been produced before the revenue authorities and question of its being lost does not arise. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. There is no controversy that in accordance with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 if the original document has been lost, the concerned party can take permission and produce secondary evidence. But it is necessary for the parties to establish the existence and execution of the original document. There must be some material to conclude that there was such a document in existence. If the record shows that such a document does not exist and what is being alleged is ex facie in- correct, in that event it will not be proper to allow secondary evidence to be produced. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in the case
5. In the present case in hand, the petitioner''s claim that the original document has been misplaced by the revenue authorities and that the will had been produced before the said authorities, there is no proper record forthcoming whereby there is any mention that such a will had been produced before the revenue authorities. In the absence of there being any such fact, the very basis of the allegations so made falls to the ground. In fact the copy of the entry of the revenue record (mutation) has been produced. It makes a reference to an order dated 8.6.1985 and therein it is mentioned that it was an oral will. Presently, this Court is not concerned if there could or could not be an oral will. But it is apparent that no such will as is now being alleged had been produced or set up before the revenue authorities. Thus, in the facts of the present case, it is clear that existence of the oral will is not established and consequently the secondary evidence was rightly refused.
6. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.
