Civil Revision No.552 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.552 of 2010 Date of decision : 30.11.2010 Lalita .... Petitioner Versus Mool Chand & Others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. P. L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 12. **** L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1 Lalita has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn order dated 18.12.2009 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 filed by defendant No.1-petitioner for permission to lead secondary evidence of registered will dated 16.09.2002. It was alleged in the application that original will has since been lost and, therefore, it is necessary to lead secondary evidence thereof. The trial Court dismissed the said application observing inter alia that thumb impressions appearing on photostat copy of the will cannot be got compared and the will seemed to be surrounded with suspicion and for this reason, the original will was being with held purposely by defendant No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Civil Revision No.552 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, as also stated at the time of motion hearing, that copy of the will pasted in the record of registration bears thumb impressions of the testatrix and also signatures of the witnesses and, therefore, permission to lead secondary evidence of the will should be granted. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 12/plaintiffs contended that no such plea was averred in application Annexure P-1 moved for permission to lead secondary evidence of the will. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Since copy of the will pasted in the record of registration is stated to be having thumb impression of the testatrix and also signatures of the witnesses, there is no reason for declining permission to lead secondary evidence of the will. The reason stated by the trial Court for dismissing the application no longer subsists in view of the stated fact that copy of the will in the record of registration has thumb impression of testatrix and signatures of witnesses. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-2 passed by the trial Court is set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by defendant No.1 is allowed and defendant No.1-petitioner is permitted to lead secondary evidence of the will in question, provided that the copy of the will pasted in the record of registration bears thumb impression of the testatrix and signatures of the witnesses. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 30.11.2010 'raj'