1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1385 OF 2010 Shardrao Ramkrushn Jadhav .... Petitioner Vs. Sou. Shubangi Nivas Mane & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Sandeep S. Koregave for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : MAY 6, 2010 P.C. : Office noting shows that affidavit of service has been filed by the Petitioner. It is stated that the first Respondent has been duly served by Registered Post A. D. and notice of the second Respondent has been returned with the postal remark “intimation delivered and not claimed”. 2. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff. The Petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that the first Respondent has no right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. It is alleged 2 that the suit property was owned by the father of the parties. A reliance is placed on alleged partition dated 7th August, 1989 made during the life time of the father. It is contended that in the said partition, the suit property has been allotted to the Petitioner. The suit was contested by the first Respondent by filing written statement. The first Respondent denied the execution of the document dated 7th August, 1989. Similar stand was taken by the second Respondent. The recording of evidence commenced. The Petitioner made an application at Exhibit 50 praying that the disputed document dated 7th August, 1989 alongwith Vakalatnama, the memorandum of address and written statement of the Respondents should be sent to handwritten expert of CID, Pune. It is contended that the Respondents have falsely denied their signature on the document dated 7th August, 1989. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected on the ground that almost all the evidence of both the parties is completed and the suit is now fixed for final argument. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that after the evidence of the Respondent was closed, in 3 view of denial of execution of the said document by the Respondents, the present application was made. He submitted that the Petitioner cannot be prevented from producing opinion of handwriting expert and an opportunity deserves to be granted to the Petitioner. 4. I have considered the submission. If the Petitioner wants to produce opinion of the handwriting expert, it is for the Petitioner to engage his own handwriting expert who can be permitted to take photographs of the disputed and admitted documents. The Petitioner cannot seek a direction to refer the documents to handwriting expert of the State. If the Petitioner wants to rely upon the opinion of a handwriting expert, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the Petitioner to engage a handwriting expert and obtain his opinion. To that extent, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. 5. Hence, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned order dated 17th 4 December, 2009, is quashed and set aside. ii. It will be open for the Petitioner to appoint on his own handwriting expert and to apply to the Trial Court for grant of permission to enable the handwriting expert to take photographs of the disputed as well as admitted documents. iii. It will be open to the Petitioner to produce and prove the opinion of the handwriting expert. iv. It is obvious that in the event of the Petitioner producing the opinion of handwriting expert, the Trial Court will permit the Respondent to lead the evidence in rebuttal. v. The Writ Petition is partly allowed in the above terms, with no orders as to costs. [A.S. OKA, J.]