ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, in I.A.No.280 of 2016 in O.S.No.134 of 2014 wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/defendants 2, 4, 5 and 6 under Section 65 of Evidence Act and refused to receive Photostat copy of the Will Deed as secondary evidence. 2. Before the trial Court R5/D6 filed petition on her behalf and also on behalf of D2, D4, D5 under Section 65 of Evidence Act stating that suit is filed by R1/plaintiff with false averment that plaint schedule property was the self-acquired property of late Sri C.L.N.Murthy, who died intestate and thereafter R1 and other defendants succeeded the suit schedule property with equal rights. She submits that plaint schedule property is never a joint property of R1 and themselves as after the death of late Sri C.L.N.Murthy, who executed a Will in his own handwriting during his lifetime sent the copies of said Will to all his children, i.e. to herself and all the respondents. It is the contention of R5/D6 that after the death of late Sri C.L.N.Murthy, on the 12th day, R1/plaintiff has also read over the Will executed by Sri C.L.N.Murthy, in front of all family members. It is the contention of R5/D6 that as per the contents of said Will there were several fixed deposits stood in the name of R1/plaintiff or he was nominated which were taken over by R1 and there are other properties in the name of late Sri C.L.N.Murthy on the date of his death, which properties were given to his other children also and they are under exclusive possession and enjoyment of said property shown in the Will. She further submits that R1/plaintiff cannot seek the partition of the plaint schedule property contending that those are joint properties. The main contention of R5/D6 is that original Will is not available as on date and as per her knowledge and other respondents, the same is in the custody of R1/plaintiff, but R1 deliberately denied the said fact, due to that it has become necessary for them to file photostat copy of Will dated 01.08.1993 executed by late Sri C.L.N.Murthy as exhibit and mark the same by treating it as secondary evidence. Hence she prays to allow the petition. 3. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the petition filed by R5/D6 along with D2, D4 and D5 on the ground that petitioners/defendants failed to lay foundation as required under Section 65(a) of Indian Evidence Act to accept the xerox copy of the Will dated 01.08.1993 and petition filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, which is substantial law but not under procedural law, which is not maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Judge, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by petitioner/D2 showing plaintiff and D3 to D6 as R2 to R5 as respondents including R5/D6 as one of the respondent in the present revision petition stating that R2 to R5 are not necessary parties. It is the contention of revision petitioner that order passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He submits that trial Judge ought to have seen that the petition filed falls within the parameters of Section 65 of Evidence Act and she ought to have allowed the same and trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that petitioners have stated in the affidavit that the original Will Deed is in the custody of R1 and satisfied the conditions prescribed under Section 65(a) of the Act. He further submits that as the contention of R1 in his counter filed before the trial Court is that Will Deed is fabricated, which is sufficient to say that Will is in existence due to that application filed to receive copy of Will Deed as secondary evidence ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. He prays to allow the revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsels appearing for both parties. 6. Learned counsel for revision petitioner mainly contended that it is specifically stated in the affidavit filed by D6 in a petition filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act that original Will Deed is with R1/plaintiff, due to that they are filing Photostat copy of the Will Deed which satisfies the condition prescribed under Section 65(a) of Indian Evidence Act, which trial Court failed to consider. He submits that even otherwise when original is not traced out, as per Section 65(c) of the Act, Photostat copy of the Will Deed can be received as secondary evidence, which was wrongly not allowed by the learned trial Judge. He argued that evidentiary value and proof of the Will cannot be decided at the time of receiving the document as secondary evidence, which can be decided at the time of conclusion of the trial. He relied on the following precedent law: (1) Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3467 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while considering Civil Appeal in Land Acquisition case at Para 26 held that, which reads as under: “Contention of Mr. Nariman that the Xerox copies of the deeds of sale produced by the parties were not admissible in evidence in terms of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act is stated to be rejected. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act postulate that secondary evidence can be led by the parties in the event primary evidence is not available. In a case of this nature, however, the claimant-respondents may be aware of the transactions. Indisputably, they did not raise any objection as regard admissibility of the said deeds of sale . The xerox copy of the deeds of sale were marked exhibits without any objection having been taken by the Respondents herein. Such an objection cannot, therefore, be taken for the first time before this Court. [See R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752 & Dayamathi Bai (Smt.) vs. K.M. Shaffi - (2004) 7 SCC 107 ]. What would be their evidentiary value may ultimately fall for consideration by the Court but the said deeds of sale cannot be rejected only on the ground that only Xerox copies thereof had been brought on records. The onus to prove the market value as obtaining on the date of notification was on the claimants. It was for them to adduce evidence to prove their claims by bringing sufficient and cogent materials on record so as to enable the court to determine the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was for them to adduce evidence to prove their claims by bringing sufficient and cogent materials on record so as to enable the court to determine the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the claimants themselves filed Xerox copies of the deeds of sale or failed to examine any witness to prove the relevant factors for determining the market value of the land acquired with reference to the said sale instances, they cannot now be permitted to resile therefrom and contend that the said documents should be totally ignored. (2) Anupam Jain Vs. Kulwanth Gupta in Civil Revision No.2991 of 2012, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, order dated 09.03.2015 wherein it is held that it is fundamental principle of law again as a matter of procedure that every document that is exhibited as evidence cannot be taken as proved as held in the judgments of the Supreme Court. He prays to allow the revision petition. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff vehemently opposed contention of revision petitioner on the ground that petition filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act without filing petition under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) CPC to receive the document by condoning the delay and as copy of alleged Will Deed not filed along with written statement, is not maintainable. He submits that in the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit, they never stated that original copy of the Will Deed is with 1st respondent/plaintiff and no foundation is laid as per Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act to receive photostat copy of the Will Deed as secondary evidence. He relied on the following precedent law: (1) SITAL DAS v. SANT RAM AND OTHERS, AIR 1954 SC 606 , wherein it is held that to receive secondary evidence, the foundation must be laid under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act. (2) ASHOK DULICHAND v. MADHAVLAL DUBE AND ANOTHER, AIR 1975 SC 1748 wherein it is held at para-7, which reads as under: “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this respect calls for no interference. (2) ASHOK DULICHAND v. MADHAVLAL DUBE AND ANOTHER, AIR 1975 SC 1748 wherein it is held at para-7, which reads as under: “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this respect calls for no interference. According to clause (a) of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, but we are not concerned with those clauses as it is the common case of the parties that the present case is not covered by those clauses. In order to bring his case within the purview of clause (a) of section 65, the appellant filed applications on July 4, 1973, before respondent No. 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed photostat copy. Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case respondent No. 1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat copy might be got examined from a handwriting expert. The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications. It was, however, nowhere stated in the affidavit that the original document of which the photostat copy had been filed by the appellant was in the possession of respondent No. 1. There was also no other material on the record to indicate that the original document was in the possession of respondent No. 1. The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken. Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such a document. The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken. Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such a document. The photostat copy appeared to the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the photostat copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High Court as might justify interference by this Court.” (3) SUDDAPALLI LAKSHMI SAROJA v. VISHNUBOTLA MURLI KRISHNA AND OTHERS, 2014(5) ALT 439 wherein it is held that for receiving a xerox copy of a document, such as Will as secondary evidence, foundation must be laid stating the contents of the document, the scribe, attestors and the person in possession of the document when original was lost. He prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: "Whether the order under challenge is sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?" 9. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: “65. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, which 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) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power— of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (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) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in 1[India] to be given in evidence2; 1[India] to be given in evidence2;" (g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.” 10. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.” 10. On perusal of above referred provision, which makes it clear that as per Section 65 Clause (a) to (g) of Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of document, when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it. 11. The present suit is filed by 1st respondent/plaintiff against his siblings i.e., petitioner and other defendants, seeking partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties. It is not `in dispute that Photostat copy of the Will now petitioner sought to be filed was not filed along with written statement filed by D3 to D6 and no petition is filed seeking permission to receive document under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) CPC when suit is said to be coming up for further evidence of defendants when after closure of evidence of D.W.1 in the suit, the 6th defendant filed petition under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly, no notice is given to 1st respondent/plaintiff to produce original Will Deed said to be in his possession due to that learned trial Judge observed at para-7 of impugned order, which reads as under: “Herein this petition, the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the original Will is not available as on the date and as per the knowledge of the petitioners, the same is in the custody of respondent No.1, but respondent No.1 deliberately denied the said fact. If really respondent No.1 deliberately denied the said fact, the petitioner has to issue notice as contemplated under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act to cause production of the original document, but the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court that the petitioner has issued notice to the plaintiff to cause production of the original document. Hence, I find that the present petition filed by the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to receive the Xerox copy of the Will executed by the executants CLN Murthy, dt.01.08.1993 as Exhibit and mark the same by treating it as secondary evidence not maintainable.” 12. The learned trial Judge also considered precedent law placed by both sides and rightly observed that petitioners failed to lay a foundation as required under Section 65(a) of Indian Evidence Act to receive xerox copy of the Will Deed dated 01.08.1993 said to be executed by late Sri C.L.N.Murthy, treating the same as secondary evidence. This Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by learned trial Judge warrants interference by this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.