Paramjeet Singh, J.

Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar where by application moved by respondents-defendants under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Act”) seeking permission to prove certified copy of Will dated 09.09.1992 allegedly executed by deceased-Dara Singh in favour of his sons i.e. respondents no. 1 to 3, by way of secondary evidence, has been allowed, subject to proof of its loss and execution.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner-plaintiff filed suit for separate possession by way of partition claiming 1/7th share in the property left by her father Dara Singh, who died on 02.08.1994. Upon notice, the respondents put in appearance and filed written statement and set up the alleged Will dated 09.09.1992 allegedly executed by deceased-Dara Singh in favour of his sons i.e. respondents no. 1 to 3. During the pendency of suit, the respondents moved application to prove the alleged Will dated 09.09.1992 by way of secondary evidence on the ground that the same has been misplaced and is not traceable despite of best efforts and certified copy of the same is already on the file. The said application was contested by the petitioner alleging that the alleged Will dated 09.09.1992 is a forged and fabricated document. No such Will was ever executed by deceased-Dara Singh during his life-time. No copy of DDR or FIR, got recorded regarding loss of the alleged Will, has been produced by the respondents. Vide impugned order dated 01.08.2013, the trial Court after considering the pleadings allowed the said application. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the alleged Will dated 09.09.1992 is a forged and fabricated document. Deceased-Dara Singh had never executed any such Will in favour of the respondents. The learned counsel has further contended that during the evidence, the respondents never alleged that the original Will dated 09.09.1992 has been misplaced. The learned counsel has further contended that the respondents are withholding the alleged original Will and have failed to prove the existence and loss of the original Will. As such, certified copy of the alleged Will dated 09.09.1992 cannot be allowed to be produced as secondary evidence unless its authenticity is proved.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has contended that loss and existence of the original Will is prima facie proved, therefore, respondents can be permitted to produce its photostat copy byway of secondary evidence. Factum with regard to the loss of original Will need not be strictly proved but a foundation has to be laid which has been laid down in the application. The learned counsel has further contended that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and the same shall be upheld.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Before I deal with the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to understand the basic idea behind the provisions of the Act relating to relevancy and evidentiary value of the documentary evidence in proving or disproving the claim. Since the power of documentary evidence in either proving or disproving a claim is undeniable, therefore, determination of question of admissibility of document is crucial in any trial for it can change the course of entire trial and consequently fate of parties. The Act entails elaborate provisions relating to admissibility of documents. ‘Best Evidence Rule’ is a golden thread which runs through the provisions relating to admissibility of evidence, and when seen in context of documentary evidence