30. The next vital question which arises is when no presumption about the genuineness of a the certified copy issued by authorities in the Country of Bangladesh can be taken, what would be the effect of the non examination of the attesting witnesses as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act. In this connection it is seen that while it is projected that the Will of the testator is registered on 11.09.1942 at Karimganj, which was in undivided India before East Pakistan was created in 14th August, 1947 and Bangladesh was created in 1971, as such, it is quite possible that the registration of the will might have been in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, but under the provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 as this Court cannot presume the genuineness of such certified copy issued by authorities at Bangladesh, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is only after complying with the provisions of Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act, 1872 can any public documents envisaged under Section 78 of the Evidence Act, 1872 be proved before the Courts in India. Thus, the proviso to section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not appear to help the respondent No.1 and, as such, owing to non- compliance of Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is held that the respondent No.1 was required to prove the due attestation of the said will. Moreover, it is seen that as per the plaint, the scribe of the will of the testator was one Satya Ranjan Das and the attesting witnesses were (1) Darindra Nath Das of Khalacherra, Karimganj, (2) Harendra Chandra Dey, pleader, (3) Koumudi Kumar Aditya, (4) Monoranjan Sharma, and (5) Sushil Chandra Dutta, M.S., all of Karimganj Town. However, no attempt has been made to prove that the said persons are dead. Thus, in the absence of any proof tendered to prove the death of the scribe of the will or of any attesting witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that the provisions of section 68 and 69 do not come to the aid of the respondent No.1, and thus, the consequences of the said finding is that the will has not been proved by examining any attesting witnesses. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, non- compliance of section 78(6) of Evidence Act, 1872 to prove the certified copy of will is fatal for the respondent No.1. Moreover, as in respect of point of determination No.1, it has been held that the suit was barred by limitation, the curing of defect of Section 78(6) of
