SITARAM Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of will dated 8. 6. 2002 against the defendants in the trial court. During the pendency of that suit, the defendants No. 3 to 5 moved an application u/s 65 of the Evident Act to allow them to lead secondary evidence in respect of the document dated 27. 4. 2007. The trial court allowed the said application vide order dated 13. 7. 2009 which is impugned in this writ petition preferred by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are two folds first is that application u/s 65 of the evidence Act should not have been allowed in absence of notice to plaintiff u/s 66 of the act; and second is that the document was not registered, therefore, it is not admissible in evidence.