1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7916 OF 2010 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.: 7916 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. P. B. Patil for Petitioner and Advocate Mr. Desle for Respondent No.4. 2. Contention is, in Regular Civil Suit No. 125 of 2005 the thumb impression on sale deeds dated 1st December, 1979 and 10th December, 1979 are denied by the present Respondents. However, in later Regular Civil Suit no.126 of 2005 that thumb impression is admitted in relation to sale deed dated 24th April, 1970. 3. According to learned counsel, in view of this admitted position, it was not necessary to forward the documents to finger print expert. 4. The learned counsel for Respondents is supporting the orders. 5. Impugned order considers the contentions in relation to sale deed dated 24th April, 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7916 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 1970 and the contention of applicants who have moved Exhibit-33. After considering rival contentions in relation to that document, Court has found it necessary to grant prayers made in Exhibit-33 and forward the said document to handwriting/ finger print expert. 6. All relevant aspects are looked into and thereafter the decision has been reached. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Writ petition is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:03/05/2011. ans/7916