JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 9th August, 2017, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, District Kullu, whereby an application under Order 18, Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC, filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant for reexamination of DW-6 Lalit Kiran, came to be dismissed, petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. It is not in dispute that the defendant was afforded opportunity by learned Court below to lead secondary evidence to prove the existence of Will, vide order dated 16th August, 2016, pursuant to which, defendant examined DW-6, Lalit Kiran, to prove the handwriting and signature of the scribe over the Will. During his examination, DW-6 Lalit Kiran identified the handwriting and signature of his father over the Will but since Will in question was a photocopy of original, learned Court below marked the same as Mark-A. Since, Will in question could not be exhibited at the time of recording of statement of defendant''s witness, DW- 6 Lalit Kiran, defendant moved an application under Order 18, Rule 17, praying therein for re-examination of DW-6 Lalit Kiran. Applicant averred in the application that father of DW-6 Lalit Kiran, late Lal Chand Thakur, had scribed the Will dated 3.12.2000, executed by late Smt. Chobi in favour of the petitioner/defendant and this aforesaid witness has already deposed before the Court and proved the factum with regard to scribing of Will by his father, Will in question, which has been marked as Mark-A, inadvertently, could not be exhibited at that time and as such DW-6 may be reexamined and re-called, so that Will proved by him is exhibited. 3. Mr. B.S. Attri, learned counsel representing the petitioner/defendant vehemently argued that since learned Court below permitted the defendant to lead secondary evidence for proving the valid execution of Will, prayer made by the defendant under Order 18, Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC for re-examination of DW-6 Lalit Kiran for the purpose of exhibiting the Will, ought to have been allowed, especially, in view of the fact that he was the only witness, who could prove the valid execution of the Will. He has further stated that it is not in dispute that neither propounder of the Will nor any marginal witness is alive and as such, permission was accorded by the learned Court below to lead secondary evidence under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the valid execution of the Will in question. He further argued that since DW-6 Lalit Kiran categorically stated before the learned Court below with regard to scribing of Will by his father, photocopy of Will made available to the Court at the time of recording of his statement, ought to have been exhibited and not marked. He further argued that exhibition of Will in question will not cause any prejudice to the opposite party because otherwise also they shall get an opportunity to rebut the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence, if any. 4. Mr. Dibender Ghosh, while opposing the aforesaid prayer made in the instant application, vehemently argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below because it is well settled law that Will can be proved in accordance with parameters laid down in section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and as such learned Court below has rightly arrived at a conclusion that since DW- 6 Lalit Kiran has only identified handwriting and signatures of his father in the Will, Will in question cannot be exhibited through this witness, especially in view of the fact that Will ought to have been tendered in evidence is the photocopy of an original. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. Having carefully perused the pleadings adduced on record vis a vis impugned order passed by the learned Court below, this Court finds that since original Will in question was not available, opportunity was granted to defendant to lead secondary evidence in terms of provision of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the existence of Will in question. Having carefully perused the pleadings adduced on record vis a vis impugned order passed by the learned Court below, this Court finds that since original Will in question was not available, opportunity was granted to defendant to lead secondary evidence in terms of provision of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the existence of Will in question. Defendant in terms of order dated 16.8.2016, passed by the learned Court below, examined DW-6, Lalit Kiran, who admittedly in his statement before the Court deposed that he identifies the handwriting and signature of his father over the Will and as such, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Court below that DW-6 Lalit Kiran was the only witness to the fact that Will was scribed and signed by his father and as such, Will in question cannot be exhibited through this witness. Needless to say that by way of secondary evidence, factum with regard to existence of a document, if any, can be proved but execution if any, of the Will, is to be proved in accordance with provisions contained in section 63 of Indian Succession Act. 7. No doubt under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC, Court enjoys power to recall and re-examine a witness in any suit at any stage, but that is for the purpose of proper adjudication of the claim. The Court while exercising its powers under the aforesaid provision of law can definitely put such question to the witnesses as it deems it fit, but in the case in hand, there is no dispute that DW-6 Lalit Kiran while deposing in the learned Court below, has categorically stated/proved handwriting and signature of the scribe of the Will, but even in that eventuality, Will in question, which is otherwise to be proved under the provisions contained in section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, cannot be exhibited through this witness, especially, being a photocopy. Rather, this Court is of the view that defendant himself should have tendered the Will in question, in evidence and later on, could get it proved by examining DW-6 Lalit Kiran. Rather, this Court is of the view that defendant himself should have tendered the Will in question, in evidence and later on, could get it proved by examining DW-6 Lalit Kiran. But in the case at hand, defendant himself never chose to get the Will in question exhibited and now by way of invoking the provisions contained under Order 18, Rule 17, an attempt has been made to fill up the lacuna in the case of defendant. 8. Leaving everything aside, it clearly emerges from the order passed by the learned Court below that Will in question has been marked as Mark-A with the permission of the Court and the Court has categorically observed that it shall be read in evidence since this document was led in evidence by the defendant and as such, this Court finds considerable force in the arguments of Mr. Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent, that since document is already on record, no prejudice whatsoever shall be caused to the defendant if same is not exhibited because otherwise also, mere exhibition of the same by DW-6 Lalit Kiran, shall not prove the case of the defendant as far as valid exhibition of Will is concerned. 9. Mr. B.S. Attri, while advancing arguments, placed reliance upon the judgment in Satinder Singh vs. Sukhdev, AIR 1999 Himachal Pradesh 72 and U.K. Ghosh vs. Voltas Ltd. and another AIR 1994 ORISSA 131 to state that procedural law should be a guide as also handmade to render substantial justice. Unless the law itself provides some serious consequences, on account of any lapse committed, the endeavour of the Court should also be to ensure that all relevant and the best materials are allowed to be brought on record, which could effectively, conclusively and finally adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 10. No doubt, the power of the Court under Order 18, Rule 17 and 17-A to do so and to direct recalling or re-examining of a witness, who has been examined earlier, in order to put any questions as the Court may deem fit or to produce evidence not previously known and could not be produced, despite due diligence, cannot be seriously disputed. But in the case at hand, as has been discussed hereinabove, no fruitful purpose shall be served in case DW-6 Lalit Kiran, who has already been examined, is recalled and reexamined. But in the case at hand, as has been discussed hereinabove, no fruitful purpose shall be served in case DW-6 Lalit Kiran, who has already been examined, is recalled and reexamined. Otherwise also, DW-6 Lalit Kiran, being son of scribe has already identified the signature and handwriting of his father on the Will in question, but to prove the valid execution of Will in question, petitioner/defendant is required to lead substantial evidence in terms of section 63 of Indian Succession Act. 11. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record and as such, the same is upheld. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.