Disposed¶15

Gora Chand Nandan v. Dipika Dey

Calcutta HC6 Apr 2026CO/3632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proof of will; secondary evidence; Section 65(f) Evidence Act; certified copy of will; original will lost/untraceable; police complaint for missing will; premature application; probate suit; Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi [2023] 12 SCR 525 : 2023 INSC 835; Gora Chand Nandan v. Dipika Dey; CO 3632 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2025; Additional District Judge 1st Court Hooghly Chinsurah; Probate Suit No. 2 of 2016; civil revision disposed; interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the impugned order was not interfered with. No order as to costs; interim order, if any, stands vacated; connected applications disposed of. ¶15

Gora Chand Nandan Vs Dipika Dey — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the impugned order was not interfered with. No order as to costs; interim order, if any, stands vacated; connected applications disposed of.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application under Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act to prove a certified copy of the will was premature, given that loss of the original will had not been established. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Since the petitioner did not lodge any police complaint for the missing will, it cannot be finally concluded that the original will has actually been lost.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has to first take the help of legal process for tracing out the original will and then proceed accordingly.

¶10

Key takeaways

The application under Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act is premature, as it has not been proved that the original will has been lost.ratio¶11
The impugned order calls for no interference at this stage, considering that the application was premature; the trial court's reliance on Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi was affirmed as correct.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision (CO 3632 of 2022) against order no. 34 dated 22.09.2022 of the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly, Chinsurah, in Act 39 Case No. 4 of 2015 renumbered as Probate Suit No. 2 of 2016, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act to prove a certified copy of a will was rejected. Held: the petitioner admittedly lodged no police complaint for the missing will, so it cannot be finally concluded that the original will, formerly in the testator's custody, has actually been lost; the petitioner must first take the help of legal process to trace out the original will and proceed accordingly; the Section 65(f) application is therefore premature. The trial court rightly relied on Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors., [2023] 12 SCR 525 : 2023 INSC 835, and the impugned order calls for no interference at this stage. Civil revision disposed of; no order as to costs; interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶1

06.04.2026 Item no. A.146 Court no. 30 g.b.

¶2

266012

¶3

CO 3632 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2025

¶4

Gora Chand Nandan Vs. Dipika Dey

¶5

Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty Mr. Tuhin Ganguly …… For the Petitioner

¶6

Written notes filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.

¶7

The writ application has been preferred challenging an order no. 34 dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1^st Court, Hooghly, Chinsurah in Act 39 Case No. 4 of 2015 renumbered as Probate Suit No. 2 of 2016.

¶8

Vide the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 65 (f) of the Evidence Act. The said application was filed by the petitioner before the trial court for proving the certified copy of the will, on the ground that the original will which was in the custody of the testator could not be traced out. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner did not lodge any police complaint for the missing will and as such it cannot be finally concluded that the original will

¶9

¶10

has actually been lost. The petitioner herein has to first take the help of legal process for tracing out the original will and then proceed accordingly.

¶11

The application 65 (f) of the Evidence Act is thus premature considering that it has not been proved that the original will has been lost.

¶12

The trial court has rightly relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors. reported in [2023] 12 SCR 525:2023 INSC 835

¶13

in this matter and the impugned order also calls for no interference at this stage, considering that the application was premature.

¶14

¶15