IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 7230 of 2025 KU ISHIKA VAIDYA THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT SHALINI SINGH VAIDYA Versus DIVYAMAN SINGH VAIDYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manoj Kumar Sanghi - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court has rejected application under Section 63 and 65 of Indian Evidence Act (Section 60 B.S.A. 2023), whereby the petitioner/plaintiff has sought to lead secondary evidence of the will executed by the testator.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition are that the suit has been filed for declaration on the basis of will by the minor plaintiff and the will had been allegedly executed in her favour by the maternal aunt of her father. The suit is being contested by the father and uncle of the petitioner and the petitioner is being represented through her mother. It is her specific assertion in the suit that the aunt of her father had executed a will in her favour on 28.10.2011 prior to her death which took place on 30.03.2012.

3. The suit is pending since the year 2014 and during pendency of the suit an application under Section 60 B.S.A. was filed in the year 2025 stating therein that the original copy of the will was given to earlier counsel for mutation of land but the earlier counsel has misplaced the said will which could not be traced out despite making best efforts by the party. Therefore, secondary evidence be permitted to be led on the basis of photocopy of the will.

4. The aforesaid application does not mention that the photocopy was prepared from the original and that it is photocopy of the original and on what date and under which circumstance it was photocopied. Nothing has been mentioned that when the original will was handed over to the counsel and only this much has been mentioned that it was detected in July 2025 that the will has been misplaced in the office of the counsel.

5. The aforesaid pleadings do not inspire any confidence as the necessary pleadings that are required to be made to lead secondary evidence on the basis of photocopy of a document are lacking in the present case. The document is a will and the application lacking the material particulars which are necessary to inspire confidence of the court so as to permit secondary evidence of contents of the will from its photocopy are lacking.

6. The trial court has rightly observed that neither the application mentions that the will has been compared with the original nor the original was ever produced before the court so that the court could have an occasion to compare the photocopy with the original. The party was required to plead and prima facie establish that under what circumstance the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document when the photocopy was prepared and who got the photocopy carried out and at that time who was in possession of the original and subsequently how the possession has been lost of the original document.

7. As the application lacks all such material particulars, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not erred in rejecting the application under section 60 of BSA.

8. Consequently, no interference can be caused in the present petition, the petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE