ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (‘the Board’), whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent no. 3 – Smt. Rami under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Tenancy Act’) has been accepted and the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the SDO, Pali rejecting the application filed by the respondent under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Evidence Act’) has been set aside and respondent has been permitted to lead secondary evidence. 2. The suit was filed by respondent no. 3 – Smt. Rami under Sections 88, 89, 188 and 92(A) of the Tenancy Act, inter-alia, seeking declaration qua the land standing in name of deceased Mohan Ram. The suit was filed based on a Will said to have been executed by the deceased Mohan Ram, brother of plaintiff-Smt. Rami on 23.05.1985. Mohan Ram died on 01.09.2006. The declaration was sought against Smt. Laxmi W/o Mohan Ram and four daughters of Mohan Ram. 3. The petitioner-defendants filed their reply to the suit and questioned the validity of the Will and denied the existence of any such Will alleging the same to be forged/concocted. The defendants also relied on the fact that regarding the document claimed as Will, proceedings were pending against Smt. Rami before the competent criminal courts, wherein challan has been filed against Smt. Rami. 4. During pendency of the suit, an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act came to be filed by the respondent-Smt. Rami with the averments that the original Will dated 23.05.1985 was lying in the house and despite efforts being made, the same was not found and somebody might have taken away. The document was searched, however, the original was not found and, therefore, the photocopy of the original Will, which was filed alongwith the suit may be permitted to be marked exhibit by way of secondary evidence. 5. Reply to the application was filed by the petitioners alleging that in the criminal case pending against the plaintiff, the finding of FSL has already been received, wherein the signatures do not tally. In the proceedings before the Police, it was claimed that the original Will was lost in Pali court, whereas contradictory plea has been raised in the present proceedings. It was prayed that the application be dismissed. In the proceedings before the Police, it was claimed that the original Will was lost in Pali court, whereas contradictory plea has been raised in the present proceedings. It was prayed that the application be dismissed. 6. The SDO after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that while in the proceedings before the Police when the respondent was called upon to produce original Will, it was claimed that the Will was lost on and around 23.03.2011 and in the present proceedings, it was claimed that the same was lying at the residence and from where the same was lost. The SDO, not being convinced with the plea raised by the respondent, rejected the application. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed revision petition before the Board, the Board by its order impugned came to the conclusion that the basis of the suit for declaration was the Will and as to whether the document was forged, would be decided during the course of evidence and the document could be admitted in evidence. The Board accepted the plea regarding the document having been lost and, consequently, allowed the revision petition. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Board committed error in accepting the revision petition, inasmuch as, the respondent has not come with clean hands and had taken contradictory pleas regarding the fact of original Will having been lost. Further submissions were made that the requirement of Section 65 of the Evidence Act has not been fulfilled and, therefore, the SDO, Pali was justified in rejecting the application and the Board was not justified in accepting the revision petition. 9. Reliance was placed on judgment in Banarsi Dass v. Om Prakash & Others, 2005 (2) CCC 629 (P&H). 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-Smt. Rami vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that the Board was justified in accepting the revision petition, inasmuch as, a specific plea regarding the original Will having been lost/misplaced was taken by the respondent and in that view of the matter, the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act were attracted in the matter and the Board was in those circumstances justified in accepting the revision petition filed by the respondent. 11. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in M/s. Hindustan Eng. Co. 11. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in M/s. Hindustan Eng. Co. & Another v. Bhagwanlal & Another, 2002 WLC (UC) 285. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. Provisions of Section 65 in so far as relevant reads as under:- “65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.–Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:- (a)……………………………… (b)……………………………… (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; (d)……………………………… (e)……………………………… (f) ……………………………… (g)………………………………” 14. A bare look at the said provision would reveal that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in case 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. 15. In the present case, in the response before the Police authority, a specific plea was raised by the respondent that after the filing of the suit in the SDM Court, the original Will was lost on 23.03.2011 at Pali and alongwith the said submission, affidavit of respondent-Smt. Rami was also filed. After taking a specific plea on 28.06.2011 before the Police regarding the document in question and the same having been misplaced on a particular date, in the application filed on 13.05.2013 under Section 65 of the Evidence Act before the SDO, Pali, a very casual plea was raised that the document, which was lying in house was misplaced and it was also stated that somebody has taken the document from the house of the respondent. The said application was also supported by affidavit of the respondent. 16. The said application was also supported by affidavit of the respondent. 16. The very fact that the respondent had taken a specific plea and had given a specific date about misplacing of the original Will i.e. on 23.03.2011 and having lost the same at Pali, the averment made in the application in the year 2013 that the original Will was lying at the residence of the respondent and the same was misplaced and somebody has taken it away from the house, appears to be a totally baseless and incorrect plea taken by the respondent. 17. The specious plea taken by counsel for the respondent that as the respondent is illiterate, she is not expected to remember as to what statement was given by her before the Police and what statement was being made before the SDO cannot be accepted. The very fact that the respondent is illiterate essentially means that all the pleas etc. are being taken by someone else at the instance of the respondent and in those circumstances, it cannot be said that such important contradictions in the plea raised are without any significance. 18. As already noticed hereinbefore, in a case where secondary evidence is sought to be led based on the fact that the original has been destroyed or lost, the same should not arise on account of own default or negligence of the party involved. The very fact that the respondent did not correctly account for the loss of document and raised pleas, which were contradictory to each other, necessarily means that the plea raised was without any basis. 19. The SDO, Pali after noticing the various contradictions in this regard, came to the conclusion that the plea regarding the document having been lost was not convincing enough to permit leading of the secondary evidence. The Board while allowing the revision petition accepted the plea of the respondent as a gospel truth regarding the document having been lost without even dealing with the reasons given by the SDO and in those circumstances, the order passed by the Board cannot be sustained. 20. The Board while allowing the revision petition accepted the plea of the respondent as a gospel truth regarding the document having been lost without even dealing with the reasons given by the SDO and in those circumstances, the order passed by the Board cannot be sustained. 20. So far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, the same deals with the procedure, where the initial requirement regarding the document having been lost is prima facie found by the Court to be plausible and as the said aspect is wholly missing in the present case, the judgment has no application to the fact of the present case. 21. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.