JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of two connected revision petitions, one bearing No.6991 of 2011, filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3.11.2011, whereby the trial court dismissed the application for leading secondary evidence and another bearing No.135 of 2012, filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.12.2011 whereby the trial court closed their evidence by order. 2. In the suit filed by Ishwar Devi and Kailash Rani plaintiffsrespondents No.1 and 2 (herein referred as, ‘the respondents No.1 and 2’) claim 1/4th share in the suit land measuring 229 kanals as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, being the legal heirs of Chanan Dass son of Vasanda Ram and the mutation No.1454 sanctioned on 13.6.1980 in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 and Yashpal predecessor in interest of the defendants No.3 to 6, on the basis of the alleged Will dated 10.1.1979, is illegal. They had also challenged the transfer of the land bearing khasra No.88//16 (8-0), 17/1 (7-12) by the defendants No.1 land 2 and aforesaid Yashpal in favour of defendants No.10 to 13 and also further transfer of the same in favour of defendants No. 14 to 16. 3. At the time when the case was fixed for defendant’s evidence, the defendants No.2, 5 and 7 moved an application for leading secondary evidence of the registered Will on the grounds that the original Will could not be traced as it was in possession of Yashpal son of Gian Chand, but he had died at very young age, therefore, the Will could not be recovered. They also placed reliance on the judgment delivered in case Smt. Sobha Rani and others vs. Ravi Kumar and others AIR 1999 P & H 21 in order to contend that secondary evidence could be produced. The relevant observations are reproduced as under :- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, Ii do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Prima facie P-3 the existence of the document has been proved in view of the facts mentioned in para 8 of the plaint and reply of the defendants to the said paragraph. Prima facie P-3 the existence of the document has been proved in view of the facts mentioned in para 8 of the plaint and reply of the defendants to the said paragraph. As regards the loss of the document, in the application itself, the loss has been pleaded and the loss is not required to be proved in absolute terms at this stage. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the other brother of the plaintiff who is also signatory to the alleged agreement is yet to be examined.” 4. The plaintiffs respondents filed reply to the application stating that Chanan Dass did not execute any Will and the alleged Will is a forged document as such in order to conceal the forgery, the original Will is not being produced. Chanan Dass used to fix his signatures in “landa” script, but copy of the Will bears his thumb impression. In this regard reliance was placed on the judgment delivered in case Mukesh Kumar alias Motta vs. State of Haryana, [2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1108] : 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 675, Om Parkash and others vs. Som Nath and another 1999 (2) PLJ 54 (P&H) and Jagta vs. Ruldu and another 1993 PLJ 203 (P&H). 5. The trial court dismissed the application. 6. Heard. The Will sought to be proved is a registered document, registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Fatehabad, on 10.1.1979, certified copy of which has been place on record. The science of handwriting may not be a perfect one but that is not so with the science of thumb impressions. In order to prove the genuineness of the Will, thumb impressions on the second copy of the Will kept in the custody of the Sub Registrar could be proved by comparing the standard thumb marks of Chanan Dass, on some other document. The Will was executed way back on 10.1.1979, whereas, the suit was filed on 13.8.2009 i.e. after 30 years of the execution of the Will. The mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the Will immediately on the death of Chanan Dass and various transactions were made by the petitioners on the basis of the said mutation. The plaintiffs never came forward to challenge the said Will during those thirty years. The mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the Will immediately on the death of Chanan Dass and various transactions were made by the petitioners on the basis of the said mutation. The plaintiffs never came forward to challenge the said Will during those thirty years. The petitioners have not disputed the existence of the Will but have challenged the same on the ground that the same is a forged document and the factum of forgery could be proved by leading evidence. However, one thing is certain that existence of the Will stands proved. 7. Now coming to the loss of the document. The petitioners have proved the loss of the document on the ground that the same was in possession of beneficiary Yashpal, who died at the young age and the same could not be traced. The petitioners could not be benefitted by concealing the original document became the second copy of the Will bearing the thumb impressions of Chanann Dass could also be proved to be forged by comparing the thumb impression of Chanan Dass on the second copy of the Will lying in the office of the Sub-REegistrar. Even otherwise, the loss of the document has been proved by way of affidavit filed by the petitioners along with the application for leading secondary evidence. The copy of the Will, through which the existence of the same is proved, is certified copy obtained from the office of the Sub Registrar, containing the recital that it was true copy of the original, therefore, existence and loss of the original stand accounted for. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment delivered in case H. Siddiqui (D) by L.Rs. vs. A. Ramalingam, [2011(3) Law Herald (SC) 1646] : (2011) 4 SCC 240 in order to contend that the secondary evidence can be proved only if its existence is proved by any foundational evidence. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court are reproduced as under :- “10. Provisions of Section 65 of the Act 1872 provide for permitting the parties to adduce secondary evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor, any factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor, any factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, the documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law. The court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon......” 8. There is no dispute with the proposition. In the present case, , the petitioners have been successful in establishing foundational evidence by proving the certified copy of the Will which is sought to be produced by way of secondary evidence. The true copy received from the record maintained by the public authorities in the ordinary course of business is an authenticated proof of the secondary evidence. Its foundation of the document relates back to thirty years and the petitioners have duly explained reasons for its non production. Even otherwise, since the Will has been produced before the Mutation Officer, therefore, it cannot be said that it was concealed. The document which once has been made the part of the public record, cannot subsequently be fabricated or manipulated at a later stage. The mere leading of secondary evidence of a Will is not itself a proof of its execution but a party has to go a long way to prove its execution by leading cogent evidence. Secondary evidence is not admissible until the production of primary evidence is satisfactorily proved. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in case Tukaram S. Dighole vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1148] : (2010) 4 SCC 329 . But, in the present case, non production of the primary evidence stands satisfactorily proved. 9. Secondary evidence is not admissible until the production of primary evidence is satisfactorily proved. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in case Tukaram S. Dighole vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1148] : (2010) 4 SCC 329 . But, in the present case, non production of the primary evidence stands satisfactorily proved. 9. In the present case, the existence and loss of the original Will has been duly explained, in such situation, non production of the original Will cannot deprive the defendant to prove the said Will by way of secondary evidence. Even this Court in case Mukhtiar Singh v. Bant Singh and another (1991-1) 99 P.L.R. 15, observed that a photostat copy of the original Will which has been placed on record may be permitted as secondary evidence to be led in. The same view was taken in Smt. Raj Kumar v. Shri Lal Chand, (1994-1) 106 P.L.R. 190. The decision in Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 S.C. 1457 has no application at this stage as it is apparent from the record that the original was produced before mutation officer on the death of Chanan Dass and mutation was sanctioned on that basis. The observations made Roman Catholic Mission’s case (supra) are not applicable for another reason that in that case the Supreme Court was dealing with the matter after conclusion of the entire evidence and not at the stage when the secondary evidence was sought to be adduced. It is also pertinent to mention here that the value of the secondary evidence if so led, has to be determined at the conclusion of the trial only. The judgment delivered in Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case on al fours. In the said case the party leading secondary evidence had taken the plea that the person, in whose possession the original document was, had died. The court, in those circumstances, had permitted the leading of the secondary evidence. Similar observations were made in case Smt. Raj Kumari vs. Shri Lal Chand (1994-1) P.L.R. 190 wherein it was observed as under :- “... Petition-writer in his statement, stated that the document in original, along with its copy, was given to Hem Raj and Ram Nath, i.e. father and uncle of the parties. Similar observations were made in case Smt. Raj Kumari vs. Shri Lal Chand (1994-1) P.L.R. 190 wherein it was observed as under :- “... Petition-writer in his statement, stated that the document in original, along with its copy, was given to Hem Raj and Ram Nath, i.e. father and uncle of the parties. Plaintiff in her statement stated that she made enquiries from the sons and daughters of Ram Nath, but they showed their ignorance with regard to whereabouts of the document in question. Hem Raj, father is dead and the defendant has denied the execution of the document. Thus, the plaintiff has successfully proved on record that the original document has been lost. Secondary evidence is permissible when the original document has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot for any reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. A party seeking permission to produce secondary evidence regarding a document is not required to prove the loss of document in absolute term......” 10. It was also observed in case Gurbux Singh and others vs. Bishan Dass ‘Chela’ Kaul Dass and others, AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana 182 that where the document is registered then although its mere registration may not by itself constitute sufficient proof of the execution of the document, in view of Sections 57 and 60 of the Registration Act, however, the certified copy thereof may prove its existence. 11. As regards loss, in case of a registered document, one way or the other, it does not require the proof of loss, in such a stricter sense that it must be accompanied by definite evidence of loss when once the plea of los is set up and is proved by way of affidavit or otherwise, then it should normally be considered particularly when the validity, genuineness, admissibility and proof are to be seen at the time of trial. 12. Resultantly, revision petition No.6991 of 2011 is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the application for leading secondary evidence is allowed. 13. As regards, Civil Revision No.135 of 2012 is concerned, since the application filed by the petitioners-defendants for leading secondary evidence has been allowed, the instant petition is also allowed, impugned order dated 22.12.2011 is set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. --------0.B.S.0------------