1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9149 OF 2009 Jayram Shankar Shinde, Deceased through his heirs Ganpat Jayram Shinde & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Dattatraya Laxman Shinde .. Respondent Mr. U.B. Nighot for the petitioners. Mr. A.B. Kadam for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Kadam for the respondent waives service. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioners challenge the order dated 2nd September 2009 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar rejecting the petitioners’ application for sending the document (Exhibit 49) produced in the suit to handwriting 2 expert for his opinion whether it bears the signature of the respondent. 4. The Trial Court, inter alia, has rejected the application on the ground that previously the application (Exhibit 86) made by the petitioners for the same relief was not pressed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced for my inspection a copy of Exhibit-86 and the order passed thereon by the Court. In that application, the petitioners had made a prayer that the document may be sent to the government finger print expert. The application was not pressed because it was pointed out that the prayer was for sending the document to the finger print expert. whereas the disputed document did not bear a finger print but bore a signature. Hence, by not pressing the application at Ex.86, the petitioner made for sending the document to Mr. Jadhav, said to be a handwriting expert. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent did not point out any other objection for referring the document to an handwriting expert. He, however submitted that the document be referred to a government handwriting expert instead of a 3 private person if at all the court was inclined to grant the application. 7. I am informed at the Bar that the suit is part-heard. The petitioners have examined six witnesses and the respondent has examined himself in which he has denied the signature. In view of the denial of the signature by the respondent, it has become necessary to send the document to an handwriting expert for his opinion. 8. The learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the application on the technical ground that the first application was withdrawn. Prayers in both the application were different, in the first application it was for sending to finger print expert and in the second it was to a handwriting expert. In the circumstances, I pass the following order: 9. The impugned order is set aside. The application of the petitioners to send the document to a handwriting expert is allowed. The document be sent to the Director, C.I.D. at Pune for obtaining an opinion of a government handwriting expert working under him for his opinion on the disputed signature of the respondent on the document at Exhibit 49. 4 The necessary formalities of sending the disputed signature and the admitted signature shall be completed by the Trial Court. 10. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)