JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 04.05.2011, whereby application moved by respondent No.1 to prove the Will dated 27.04.1994 by way of secondary evidence, was allowed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 3. The Trial Judge, while allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 for permission to prove the Will in question by leading secondary evidence has held as under:- “After giving thoughtful consideration to the averments and the respective contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, firstly it is observed that the plaintiff Surjit Kaur has filed the suit for declaration of ownership in possession over the property left by deceased Pritam Dass son of Baj Ram, on the basis of Will dated 27.04.1994 in her favour. The original will stated to have been produced by the plaintiff in mutation no.3304 of village Singriwala before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur, on the basis of which the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned. The Sadar Kanungo summoned with the record of Will stated that the will is not in office of Sadar Kanungo and thereafter the office Kanungo Tehsil was summoned to prove the mutation no.3304 decided by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur on 21.02.1995. Even Shri Ram Parkash Clerk of the office of Office Kanungo stated that the original will is not in the office of Kanungo. Though the execution of the will dated 27.04.1994 by Pritam Dass in favour of the plaintiff was denied by the plaintiff. However, in the given set of the facts and circumstances above discussed it is observed that since the original will stated to had been produced by the plaintiff in mutation no.3304 of village Singriwala before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur and the same is not being produced by the concerned Sadar Kanungo, office Kanungo, therefore, in that event there is no other alternative remedy available to the plaintiff to prove the will dated 27.4.1994 except by way of leading the secondary evidence. As such, the application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Now to come up on 12.5.2011 for secondary evidence at own responsibility.” 4. Thus, in the present case, mutation was initially sanctioned by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade on the basis of the Will dated 27.04.1994 vide order dated 21.02.1995 (Annexure P-3). As such, the application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Now to come up on 12.5.2011 for secondary evidence at own responsibility.” 4. Thus, in the present case, mutation was initially sanctioned by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade on the basis of the Will dated 27.04.1994 vide order dated 21.02.1995 (Annexure P-3). A perusal of the said order reveals that Surjit Kaur had produced photocopy of the Will. A perusal of the order further reveals that Prithpal Singh who had allegedly scribed the Will had stated that he had seen the original Will. On the basis of the Will, mutation was sanctioned. Although, the mutation has been set aside by the higher revenue authorities but the fact remains that on the basis of the Will, initially mutation was sanctioned. Official from the office of Kanungo has reported that original Will was not available in their office. In these circumstances, the Trial Judge had rightly allowed the plaintiff to prove the Will in question by leading secondary evidence, as at this stage, it cannot be presumed that original Will had never been produced before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Moreover, a perusal of the order (Annexure P-3) further reveals that the petitioner was also present when the said order was passed and had opposed the mutation on the basis of Will in question. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial court had rightly allowed the application. 5. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 6. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------