Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

This petition under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeks probate of the documents dated 23rd October, 1983 and 16th April, 1986 stated to be validly executed last Will and Codicil respectively of Sh. Raja Ram son of late Sh. Ram Singh resident of Gurgaon, Haryana.

2. Territorial jurisdiction of this Court is invoked as the immovable property of the deceased is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The petition is filed by Sh. Jai Parkash Aggarwal @ Jay Prakash Aggarwal son of the deceased and besides impleading the State, Sh. Amar Prakash, another son of the deceased was impleaded as respondent No.2 and Mrs. Darshana Singla and Mrs. Anand Bansal, daughters of the deceased were impleaded as respondents No.3&4 respectively and Sh. Satish Singla being son of the respondent No.3 Mrs. Darshana Singla was impleaded as the respondent No.5.

4. Objections are found to have been filed on behalf of the respondents No.3&5 Mrs. Darshana Singla and Sh. Satish Singla and to which a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner.

5. A written statement is also found to have been filed by the respondent No.4 Mrs. Anand Bansal. The counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent No.4 Mrs. Anand Bansal in the written statement supported the petitioner and thus need to file rejoinder thereto was not felt.

6. No objections are found to have been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 Sh. Amar Prakash and who is informed to have been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23rd September, 2005.

7. Today, besides the counsel for the petitioner, only the senior counsel for the respondent No.4 Mrs. Anand Bansal appears and both state that respondents No. 3 & 5 Mrs. Darshana Singla and Sh. Satish Singla have since withdrawn the objections by submitting a letter to this effect to the Commissioner appointed for recording evidence.

8. Prior thereto, vide order dated 1st November, 2012, the following issues were framed in the petition:

"(i) Whether the deceased late Sh. Raja Ram Singh died leaving behind the Will dated 23.10.1983 and the Codicil dated 16.4.1986?

(ii) Relief."

9. The counsel for the petitioner commenced his final arguments.

10. The senior counsel for the respondent No.4 has rightly contended that the only question to be considered in this proceeding is, whether the documents dated 23rd October, 1983 and 16th April, 1986 claimed to be the validly executed last Will and Codicil respectively of the deceased have been proved or not and according to him, have not been proved, inasmuch as the originals thereof even have not come on record.

11. I have enquired, whether the foundation for leading secondary evidence has been laid in evidence.

12. While the senior counsel for the respondent No.4 denies, the counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the order dated 22nd September, 2006 where the application being IA No.13150/2006 of the petitioner to prove the document dated 23rd October, 1983 by secondary evidence was allowed. Though the petitioner vide the said application had also sought permission to prove the document dated 16th April, 1986 also by secondary evidence but the order dated 22nd September, 2006 records that the prayer in that regard had been withdrawn. The counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 4th August, 2015, a subsequent application being IA No.10942/2015 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was allowed. The order dated 4th August, 2015, while allowing IA No.10942/2015 for leading secondary evidence to prove the document dated 16th April, 1986 permits the petitioner to summon the original document from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi with which it purports to be registered.

13. The senior counsel for the respondent No.4 states that the petitioner subsequently, on 19th March, 2016, gave up the said witness.

14. Though the counsel for the petitioner does not controvert but states that in order 28th February, 2008, it is already recorded that