ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure-4) passed by Learned Trial Court may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by respondent/plaintiff may kindly be dismissed. Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of property and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants, before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara. 2.1. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before Additional District Judge, Bhilwara. 2.1.1. It was stated in the application that the disputed property was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff from one Shri Roshan Lal Sanadhya S/o Late Shri Prabhu Lal Sanadhya on 04.06.2019, for which the said Roshan Lal executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 2.1.2. It was further stated in the application that half portion of the property was bequeathed in favour of Roshan Lal by his father vide registered Will dated 24.07.1985. Since Shri Roshan Lal had expired on 31.12.2020, the original Will could not be obtained and produced, and therefore, it was prayed in the application that the certified copy of the Will may be taken in evidence as secondary evidence. 2.1.3. It was also stated in the application that remaining half portion of the property was purchased by Late Shri Roshan Lal from one Smt. Maniben, for which registered sale deed was executed; however, on count of demise of Shri Roshan Lal, the original sale deed could not be obtained and produced, and therefore, it was prayed in the application that the certified copy of the said sale deed may be taken in evidence as secondary evidence. 2.1.4. 2.1.4. It was further stated in the application that pertaining to the dispute property in question, a case bearing No. 94/2020 titled as Manohar Lal vs. Kalulal and Others is pending consideration before the learned District Court, Bhilwara; in the said case, Manohar Lal (petitioner/defendant) has mentioned about the undisputed fact of demise of Roshan Lal on 31.12.2020. 2.1.5. In favour of one Madan Lal and Shyam Lal, who were brothers of the petitioner/defendant (Manohar Lal), Smt. Maniben had executed a sale deed pertaining to the disputed property. Since the brothers (Madan Lal and Shyam Lal) had also expired, therefore, the original sale deed could not be obtained and produced, and therefore, in the application, it was prayed that the certified copy of the said sale deed may be taken in evidence as secondary evidence. 2.1.6. It was also mentioned in the application by the respondent/plaintiff that taking the aforementioned certified copies of the documents as secondary evidence was necessary for the effective and fair adjudication of the suit in question. 2.2. The learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 allowed the aforesaid application, while taking the aforementioned documents in evidence as secondary evidence. 2.3. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhilwara, the petitioners/defendants have preferred this writ petition claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that as per the respondent/plaintiff himself, the originals of the documents in question were not in his possession on count of the reasons, as mentioned in the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act; but since the respondent/plaintiff clearly failed to show as to what steps were taken by him to obtain the originals of the documents in question, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3.1 He further submits that since the respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour by Late Shri Roshan Lal, then it can, at least, be presumed that the respondent/plaintiff was having in his possession the said original sale deed, which could certainly be produced at the time of filing of the suit; but even the same was not done by the respondent/plaintiff, that too, without any justifiable reason. 3.2. 3.2. He also submits that the learned Court below however, passed the impugned order without adopting the due procedure as prescribed under Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus, the learned Court below was not justified in passing the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners/defendants, submits that the original Will was in possession of Shri Roshan Lal, and since he died on 31.12.2020, therefore the original Will could not be produced. 4.1 He further submits that half portion of the disputed property was purchased by Late Roshan Lal from Smt. Maniben, the sale deed pertaining thereto was registered; on count of demise of Roshan Lal, the certified copy of the sale deed was obtained from Office of the Sub-registrar, Bhilwara; therefore, the learned court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 4.2. Learned counsel also submits that Madan Lal and Shyam Lal also purchased some portions of the property, and in that regard also, a sale deed was executed in their favour by Smt. Maniben; but since both Madan Lal and Shyam Lal had expired, the original sale deed could not be obtained and produced. Thus, on that count also, the impugned order deserves no interference. 4.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Smt. Manita Tak and Others vs. Ram Gopal Tanwar (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5019/2017, decided on 21.02.2018). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent/plaintiff filed the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for taking certain documents on record as secondary evidence. 7. This Court further observes that due to death of Roshan Lal on 31.12.2020, the original Will could not be produced before the learned Court below; as regards the originals of the other documents viz. sale deeds executed between the Maniben and Roshan Lal, Maniben and Madan Lal, and Shyam Lal and Maniben; as well as the death certificates of Madan Lal and Shyam Lal, it has come on record that since the concerned persons had already expired, the original documents could not be produced. sale deeds executed between the Maniben and Roshan Lal, Maniben and Madan Lal, and Shyam Lal and Maniben; as well as the death certificates of Madan Lal and Shyam Lal, it has come on record that since the concerned persons had already expired, the original documents could not be produced. 8. This Court also observes that the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 concluded that the aforesaid documents i.e. certified copies, as produced by the respondent/plaintiff, were genuine, and that, the petitioners/defendants also chose not to file any reply to the application so preferred by the respondent/plaintiff, so as to substantially controvert the averments made in the said application. 9. This Court is conscious of the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagmail Singh and Another vs. Karamjit Singh and Others, Civil Appeal 1889/2020 decided on 13.05.2020; relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as hereunder: “10. For proper appraisal of the matter in controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 65 and 66 of the Act which read 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. (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 India to be given in evidence. (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. 66. Rules as to notice to produce - Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, [or to his attorney or pleader] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case: Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it: (1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice. (2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it. (3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force. (4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court. (5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document. (6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court.” 11. (4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court. (5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document. (6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court.” 11. A perusal of Section 65 makes it clear that secondary evidence may be given with regard to existence, condition or the contents of a document when the original is shown or appears to be in possession or power against whom the document is sought to be produced, 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 notice mentioned in Section 66 such person does not produce it. It is a settled position of law that for secondary evidence to be admitted foundational evidence has to be given being the reasons as to why the original Evidence has not been furnished. 19. The appellants would be entitled to lead secondary evidence in respect of the Will in question. It is, however, clarified that such admission of secondary evidence automatically does not attest to its authenticity, truthfulness or genuineness which will have to be established during the course of trial in accordance with law.” 10. Thus, in view of the above and in light of the judgment Jagmail Singh and Another (Supra), as also looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, so as to warrant any interference therein. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.