documentary evidence must be considered for fair adjudication. f) The dismissal of the application precludes the petitioner from substantiating its case based on the strongest available evidence. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner has not ascribed any reason whatsoever for seeking to place on record the copy of registered Will at such a late stage when the entire evidence has been led on behalf of the petitioners as also the contesting respondents. It is further submitted that even though, petitioner had the copy of the registered Will in the year 2014, when his evidence was recorded as PW-3, no effort was made to produce and prove the registered Will. Thus, there is no justification for granting permission to place on record the certified copy of the Will. 16. Undisputedly, the Probate Petition was filed in the year 2009. Ideally speaking, the certified copy of the Will should have been made part of the petition. Petitioner collected the certified copy of the Will in the year 2012 from the Sub Registrar’s Office. Thus, admittedly, petitioner was in possession of the certified copy in the year 2014, i.e., before his examination in court as PW-3. 17. The learned Trial Court itself has noted in its order that an assertion that the Will in question was a registered Will, finds mention not only in the amended petition dated 10.04.2018 but also in the original petition filed in the year 2009. Thus, the case of the petitioner throughout has been that testator executed a Will which was duly registered with the Sub Registrar’s Office. Thus, by seeking permission to place on record the certified copy of the Will, petitioner is not trying to set up a new case.
