ORDER 1. The petitioner has prayed for review of the order dated 7.5.2013 in Writ Petition No.683/2010. 2. Shri R.K.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that the document sought to be produced as secondary evidence was a certified Will issued by the Notary in the year 1975. By taking this Court to certain provisions of the Notary Act, 1952, it is contended that the Notary is authorised to issue such certificate and, therefore, the review petitioner's case is covered under section 63(3) of the Evidence Act. He submits that this Court has erred in rejecting the contention. 3. Prayer is opposed by Shri Sanjay Sharma. He submits that the prayer of the petitioner is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction of this Court. 4. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The order of this Court shows that the similar contention was advanced by the other side, which is considered in the order dated 7.5.2013. Section 63(3) of the Evidence Act provides that secondary evidence means and includes copy made from or compared with the original. The contention of the petitioner was rejected by assigning following reasons :- “(8) In the present case, the factum, existence and genuineness of the document is doubted by the other side. Respondent No.1 by filing reply specifically stated that the original document in question is in his possession. However, he took a 'U' turn lateron and stated that the said original will is filed in some case. However, particulars of the case, case number and parties name etc. were not intimated by the plaintiff. Thus, the very existence of the document is doubtful. At present there is no material to show that the document in question sought to be introduced as secondary evidence is a copy by mechanical process from original and the person producing it has verified it nor there is any occasion for the Court below to examine and compare the secondary evidence/copy with the original. Thus, in my opinion, the basic ingredient for bringing a case within the ambit of “secondary evidence” is absent in this matter. Thus, in my opinion, the basic ingredient for bringing a case within the ambit of “secondary evidence” is absent in this matter. The apex Court in Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, reported in (2010)4 SCC 329 , opined that “to put the matter briefly, the general rule is that secondary evidence is not admissible until the non-production of primary evidence is satisfactorily proved.” 7. This is settled in law that under the garb of review, party cannot claim rehearing of the matter. The point raised has already been decided by this Court. There is no error, which warrants interference of this Court under review jurisdiction. 8. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. R.K. Soni for review petitioner; Sanjay Sharma for respondent No.1.