JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.:- The petitioner, who is one of the defendants, has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 10.8.2010 passed by the trial Court whereby the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 were permitted to prove the certified copy of the report of Fingerprint Expert dated 12.9.1994 alongwith the photographs by way of leading secondary evidence, subject to all just exceptions. 2. It is not in dispute that the original report of Fingerprint Expert alongwith photographs was produced before the Sub Divisional Officer(C)-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hoshiarpur in mutation proceedings. The record of the mutation proceedings is not traceable. However, the plaintiffs were in their possession the certified copy of the report of the Fingerprint Expert which they want to bring on record by way of secondary evidence in support of their stand that the signatures on the Will were not in the handwriting of deceased Rajinder Singh Bains. Merely because the report of the Fingerprint Expert was doubted by the Financial Commissioner in the proceedings with regard to sanction of mutation is no ground to deny the prayer made by the plaintiffs for bringing the same on record in the present proceedings, i.e. suit for declaration that land measuring 152 kanals 8 marlas was joint Hindu family coparcenary property of which they are owners in possession of 1/3rd plus 1/9th share. The allowing of the prayer of the plaintiffs for proving the report of Fingerprint Expert by leading secondary evidence does not mean that the same is required to be accepted by the Court at the time of delivering the judgment. Vide impugned order the trial Court has already kept open the objection with regard to evidentiary value of the signatures and admissibility of the report in question. At the same time, the photographs of the signatures of Rajinder Singh Bains which were taken by the Fingerprint Expert cannot be permitted to be brought on record by leading secondary evidence as the plaintiffs did not produce their certified copies. To that an extent, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the revision is disposed of by upholding the impugned order to the extent of permitting the plaintiffs to prove the report of the Fingerprint Expert by leading secondary evidence. To that an extent, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the revision is disposed of by upholding the impugned order to the extent of permitting the plaintiffs to prove the report of the Fingerprint Expert by leading secondary evidence. The impugned order, insofar it permits the plaintiffs to produce the photographs of the signatures of deceased Rajinder Singh Bains, is set aside. However, it would be open to the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence in respect of the photographs if they produce their certified copies. --------0.B.S.0------------