1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 655 OF 2010 Namdeo s/o Narayan Hazare .. PETITIONER VERSUS Ramdas Pundlik Hazare & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.T. Nandode, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 16th APRIL, 2010 PER COURT : 1 An application tendered by the petitioner requesting the court to refer the document for examination of handwriting expert has been turned down by the appellate court while dealing with Civil Appeal no. 38/2005 and the said order passed by the appellate court on 18-8-2009 is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 Petitioner herein is an objector to the application tendered by the respondents for grant of probate in their favour. On consideration of the 2 application tendered by the respondents / original applicants in Misc. Application no. 110/99, considering the objections raised by the petitioner herein, trial court was pleased to direct grant of probate in view of order passed on 20-2-2005. Petitioner herein has presented appeal to the District Court raising exception to the order passed by the trial court. In the pending appeal, application came to be tendered by the petitioner requesting the court to refer the will deed in question for examination of the handwriting expert for seeking his opinion. The first appellate court has turned down the application for the reasons recorded in the order. 3 I have perused the order passed by the first appellate court dt.18-8-2009 and heard arguments advanced. The application is admittedly presented at belated stage before the appellate court. During continuance of the proceeding before the trial court, although authenticity of the document was challenged by the petitioner, no such request was made to the trial court for sending the document for securing opinion of the handwriting expert. There is no reason demonstrated as to why such an application was not presented before the trial court and as to why the same is being presented at belated stage before the appellate court. Considering the merits of the contentions raised by the respondent / original applicant, 3 the trial court has allowed the application and the said order passed by the trial court is subject matter of challenge before the first appellate court. All the contentions those are required to be raised in the matter can be raised and would be considered by the first appellate court. At this interlocutory stage, no interference is called for in the instant petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp655.10.odt