1 Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1386 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri R.A. Thorat with Shri P.J. Thorat for the Petitioner. Shri M.S. Karnik i/by Shri Sachin Gite for Respondent No.1. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2010 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff. The challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 27th January, 2010. The operative part of the order reads thus:- “8. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that, the said alleged agreement dated 11/01/2007 be sent to the Handwriting Expert, C.I.D. Office, Sangam Bridge, Pune, by retaining it’s copy on record in the custody of Superintendent of this Court to avoid any apprehended tampering of document, along with admitted documents i.e. Vakalatnama and Written Statement. Order accordingly. The Applicant to deposit necessary charges directly 2 in that office.” 2. The order has been passed for facilitating the investigation to be carried out by the concerned police officer on the basis of the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is obvious that the order impugned cannot be read as an order under Rule 10-A of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order has been passed only to enable the investigating officer to obtain an opinion of the concerned expert. The order does not affect the merits of the pending suit. As the order is not passed under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the said Code, it is obvious that the expert’s report which may be obtained by the police officer cannot be read in evidence in the suit unless it is proved in accordance with law. 3. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)