JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - Present revision petition has been filed against an order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula allowing the respondent herein to lead secondary evidence to prove the suicide note alleged to have been executed by her late husband. 2. It was the case of the respondent that the carbon copy of the suicide note was supplied to her by the brother of her husband and the original thereof was with the opposite party, which they have failed to produce in Court. The prayer was, thus, made for allowing her to lead secondary evidence by producing carbon copy by way of secondary evidence. 3. The petitioner herein challenged the sanctity of the said document. However, this plea was rightly rejected by the Courts below by observing that by merely permitting a party to lead secondary evidence the document would not be deemed to have been proved. It was still for the respondent herein to prove the said document by leading cogent and admissible evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below have allowed the application by ignoring the well settled principles of law that unless and until it is proved that the original cannot be produced the secondary evidence to prove a document cannot be allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ved Parkash v. Rattan Lal Aggarwal, 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 103 to argue that before a secondary evidence could be allowed it was the requirement of law to prove the execution of the said document. However, in the present case no such attempt was made and therefore, the order cannot be sustained. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Amarjit Kaur and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2005(3) RCR 501 contended that in the said case where the secondary evidence was allowed for proving the Will the said order was set aside as the respondent in his case had failed to prove the loss of the document. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Ram Sahai Sood v. Om Prakash and others, 2005(3) RCR(Civil) 585 to contend that until and unless loss of document is proved no secondary evidence is permissible. 6. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Ram Sahai Sood v. Om Prakash and others, 2005(3) RCR(Civil) 585 to contend that until and unless loss of document is proved no secondary evidence is permissible. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Ashok Dulichand v. Madhavlal Dube and another, AIR 1975 SC 1748 to contend that unless and until the loss of original is proved it is not open to the Court to allow the leading of secondary evidence as this would violate the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act. 7. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any force as in the present case the respondent herein had asserted that the original was in the possession of opposite party and as they had failed to produce the same it was open to the respondent to prove the same by way of secondary evidence. The learned Courts below have also taken note of the fact that the said suicide note was not in the knowledge of the respondent herein prior to the receipt of carbon copy from the brother of her late husband. In these circumstances, it would be seen that the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act stood complied with and therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Courts below. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula and dismiss the revision petition being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.