1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1536 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1536 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The documents like consent deed, affidavit of examination in chief of petitioner/ plaintiff and of defendant and cross examination of plaintiff, are produced before this Court. The same are perused. 2. It is apparent that in his examination in chief plaintiff/ petitioner has avoided to state on oath anything about the identify of person either signing or making thumb impression on disputed consent deed. In cross examination of petitioner/ plaintiff defendant has not confronted him with said document. Only his defence that document is bogus, has been put and that has been denied by the plaintiff. In his examination in chief defendant again has stated that alleged consent deed is bogus. 3. In this view of the matter, it is 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1536 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. apparent that evidence on record is insufficient to give exhibit number to consent deed. Fact that said consent deed has been exhibited in some other suit is not relevant at this stage. Similarly, application moved by petitioner/ plaintiff for sending that document to handwriting expert is also not relevant. 4. As I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, petition is misconceived and the same is rejected. 5. Needless to mention that the petitioner/ plaintiff can take appropriate steps, if open in law, for proving said document. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:08/04/2011. ans/1536