IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7952 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 7952 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 7952 OF 2007 Shri Natobar Satkori Chaudhary ... Petitioner. Vs. Shri Dipen Satkori Choudhary ... Respondent. Mr. A.K.Saxena for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ original plaintiff impugning the order dated 29.9.2007 of the Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Thane rejecting the application of the petitioner wherein he had sought a prayer to send documents to handwriting expert and for chemical examination/analysis to get the opinion of the expert on the ground the signature on the document at Exhibit 76 is not of the defendant witness No.2. 3. In so far as the signature of the witness on the document is concerned, the trial Court has observed that the witness himself has admitted his signature and, therefore, sending the document for handwriting expert will only cause delay in the matter and will not serve any purpose. 4. In so far as the aspect of sending the documents to Chemical Analyser is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that initially on the agreement for sale, dated 25th May, 1987, the name of the petitioner appeared; however, the respondent has committed forgery by erasing the name of the petitioner and incorporating his name on the agreement and the chemical analyser will be able to give an opinion as to whose name appeared in the agreement originally. The Trial Court has observed that the learned advocate for the defendant ( Respondent herein) has stated at the bar that he will be examining the witness who was present at the time of execution of the document and has signed it and the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to send the document to any expert. 5. Having perused the material on record and the impugned order, I am of the view that the application of the petitioner at the fag end of the Trial, is not bona fide and prima facie appears to be made with a view to delay the Trial. 6. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the petition and no interference is called for to exercise writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]