2025:HHC:23978 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.33/2018 Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2025. Swaran Singh .....Petitioner Versus Ravi Singh and Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Jiwan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 2 and 8. Respondents No.4 and 6 proceeded against ex parte. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to order dated 08.12.2017, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application preferred under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, has been denied. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and impugned order. 3. The documents with respect to which secondary evidence is sought to be led, is a Will dated 26.10.1994, executed by Sh. Pritam Singh. The original Will has been placed on record. All that submitted is that in the Will so placed on record, some interpolations has been made. 4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court was of the view that the application filed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:23978 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, for leading secondary evidence is misconceived, as in the case at hand, the original Will has neither been destroyed or lost. I see no infirmity in the view taken by the trial Court. 4. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 5. Besides the aforesaid, in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 6. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 2025:HHC:23978 7. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court below on 01.08.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 23rd July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)