documents were not allowed as secondary evidence in these cases on the ground that the petitioners therein could not show how the photostat copies were got made, when the original was not in the possession of the party. That requirement may not apply to the facts of the present case. In regard to one doucment, certified copy of the registered will has been placed on record. There is no objection made to production of this document by the counsel for the respondents as secondary evidence. The second will also concededly was in the possession of the petitioner and as such, he could have had the occasion to make photocopy therof. Accordingly, the observations in the cases of Ashok Dulichand and J. Yashoda (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has laid sufficient basis to show existence of the document and has made an averment that the same is lost. He accordingly has made out a case for leading secondary evidence in regard to the second will also which has been declined. It will be futile to mention that only permission to lead secondary evidence has been granted and it will always be open for the parties to argue about the value to be attached to this piece of evidence, which is taken on record as secondary evidence. The impugned order to an extent declining the prayer of the petitioner for leading secondary evidence of the will of the Parkash Kaur is set aside. The petitioner would be permitted to lead secondary evidence in regard to the said will also."
