W.P.No.1356 of 2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1356 of 2008. [Nandkishore Balbhadralal Jaiswal] VS. [Smt. Kamlabai Wd/o Sadanand Bhagat and others] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri V. M. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram: A. H. JOSHUI, J. Dated: 26th March 2008. 1. This Court has discreetly examined the grievance of the petitioner. It is seen from the certified xerox copy of disputed deposition at Annexure-E, Page 61-A onwards. The alleged interpolation is seen at Page 61-K, which reads as follows : The last two words are claimed to be altered, while all initial words are alleged to be total addition in order to destroy the worth of the W.P.No.1356 of 2008. 2 statement. 2. To support his contention that the said tampering is done, the petitioner places reliance upon the certified copy of deposition procured by the petitioner in 1998, photo copy whereof is at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition. 3. On perusal of Annexure-D at page 51 K, it reveals that the group of words is alleged to be added by which interpolation is, alleged are not found. 4. It needs to be noted that the certified copy received by the petitioner in 1998 is a copy procured by writing afresh in the process of issuing a certified copy, and is not a photo copy of original manuscript of deposition on record. 5. This Court has perused each page of Annexure-E at page 61-A onwards, which is the alleged tampered deposition. W.P.No.1356 of 2008. 3 6. After considering the layout, manner of writing, spacing in the lines, spacing in paragraphs etc., found in Annexure-E, the allegation that the addition of lines is done by way of interpolation is based on imagination. 7. The coherence and consistency in writing which is seen, was bound to be lost had any act of correction, addition etc., by interpolation or even when a genuine correction be done or caused by the Judge. The consistency could still be maintained i.e. despite tampering, had it been the petitioner's case that the entire sheet concerned be replaced, which is not the grievance or allegation of the petitioner. 8. The reasons recorded by the first appellate Court though are in a different format, on appreciation of facts, this Court concurs with trial Court that tampering is not done. The petitioner seems to have been W.P.No.1356 of 2008. 4 guided, rather misguided due to wrong copy, which he has received, contents whereof are favourable to him. 9. In these premises, no interference is called for. 10. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE Sbm