Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Deceased Baldev executed a testamentary disposition qua the suit property in favour of the defendants (petitioners herein). Mutation of inheritance on strength thereof was attested in favour of the defendants (petitioners herein). However, the Patwari, who was handed over the original copy of the testamentary disposition executed qua the suit property by the deceased testator Baldev Singh in favour of the propounder petitioners herein, by the latter, purportedly lost it. Hence, its loss at the instance of the Patwari deterred, disabled and precluded the defendants (petitioners herein) to adduce and prove it in accordance with law. In face thereof the defendants (petitioners herein) instituted an application under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act for permission/leave to adduce into evidence by way of secondary mode, a photo copy thereof. On the said application, reply was furnished by the plaintiffs (respondents herein). 2. On the contentious pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on being seized of the application framed the issues extracted hereinafter:- “1. Whether there existed Will dated 27-12.1996 being executed by late Sh. Baldev Singh in favour of defendant No.1. OPD. 2. If issue No.1 above is proved in affirmative, whether defendants are entitled for leave to adduce secondary evidence of aforesaid Will? OPD? 3. Relief.” 3. On appraisal of the material, as existed/adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the application preferred before it by the defendants (petitioners herein). The learned counsel appearing for the defendants (petitioners herein) has vigorously strived to sway this Court to conclude that the enshrined parameters engrafted in sub section (3) of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act which stand extracted hereinafter: “63 Secondary evidence.- Secondary evidence means and includes— (1) xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx (3) copies made from or compared with the original; stand satiated especially from a reading of the testimony of AW-1 Jagpal Singh, who therein has admitted the factum of the original Will having been handed over by him to the Patwari for attesting mutation of inheritance qua the suit property in favour of the beneficiaries as also has divulged therein that preceding its handing over by him to the Patwari a photo copy thereof was retained by him and the same was compared by him with the original. On strength thereof, an argument is raised that the photo copy of the original proposed to be adduced into evidence by way of secondary mode is the one compared with the original, hence its adduction into evidence is necessitated in the face of the original having been lost. In other words the photo copy of the original proposed to be adduced into evidence by secondary mode while hence coming to satisfy the parameters enshrined in the aforesaid sub section (3) of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act ought to have been permitted to be taken into evidence. Its refusal to be adduced into evidence has been contended to be vitiated. However, the above submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the defendants (petitioners herein) are rendered rudderless in the face of the fact that she has read the apt provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act on which she relies, in isolation or apart from the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas both are ordained to be read in conjunction or combinedly. Furthermore, the provisions on which the learned counsel for the defendants (petitioners herein) relies upon as exist in sub section (3) of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act are subject to and are to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 65 sub clause (c) of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter: “65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.- Secodnary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:- (a) xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; Only on satisfaction having come to be drawn qua the factum of the original testamentary disposition qua the suit property by the deceased testator, in favour of the petitioners herein having been cogently proved to have been destroyed or lost, would the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, come into play. However, even though the learned counsel for the petitioners herein with great vigour contended before this Court that the loss of the original Will stands proved, by the deposition of AW-1 Jagpal Singh nonetheless the self carrying or self serving testimony of the plaintiffs cannot lend succor to the factum of hence its loss having come to be proved by cogent evidence. The best and cogent evidence to prove the loss of the original comprised in the testimony of the Patwari. However, the Patwari has remained unexamined. The lack of effort or concert on the part of the petitioners herein to lead the Partwari into the witness box, especially when his evidence comprised the best evidence to prove the factum of loss of the original, as such, for omission of adduction of best evidence no conclusion can be formed that the original as produced before the Patwari by the petitioners herein, for on its strength enabling the former to attest or record mutation of inheritance in favour of the defendants, was lost by him. Besides, the other best evidence which may have been or could have been adduced by the petitioners herein to prove the factum of its loss was comprised in the factum of the petitioners having applied for a copy of the original Will produced by them before the Patwari and the Patwari on such application having endorsed therein the factum that during the course of his retaining it, his having lost it. In view of the aforesaid, no conclusion other than the one of the petitioners herein having abysmally failed to prove the factum of loss of the original Will, can be formed. In aftermath, reliance upon the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act by the learned counsel for the petitioners anvilled upon the testimony of the petitioners is both misplaced and mis-maneuvered, hence is discountenanced. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition hence is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the learned trial Court, seeking leave of the learned trial Court to lead the Patwari into the witness box. Any such application shall be decided by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. No costs.