IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2010 SHRI MULLA SHAIKH ABDUL GAUS AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus M/S. DELTA ASSOCIATES AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 12th August, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. An affidavit cum declaration dated 7/04/2000 purported to have been signed by plaintiff no.1 was produced in the cross-examination of PW1. PW1 disputed his signature. 3. According to the defendants, the said affidavit-cum-declaration was a document which was executed by plaintiff no.1 before the notary. The plaintiffs then filed an application dated 22/06/2009 praying therein that the said affidavit cum declaration be sent to a handwriting expert for his opinion whether the signature thereon was really that of plaintiff no.1. As stated in the said application, the plaintiffs suspected that defendant no.1 Shri Sheikh Afzal has forged his signature and, therefore, it was necessary to punish him for committing forgery. This application dated 22/06/2009 was disposed of by the learned trial Court by order dated 18/07/2009. Both the parties have not challenged the said order till date. 4. After the said order dated 18/07/2009, the plaintiff filed another application dated 23/07/2009 raising three questions on which the opinion was to be given by the handwriting expert. The said application was objected to by defendant no.1 stating that questions nos.2 & 3 were irrelevant. The question no.2 was whether the signature on the said affidavit cum declaration was of Mr. Mulla Shaikh Abdul Gaus or Mr. Kundaikar who were the partners of defendant no.1 and question no.3 was whether the said signature was of any other third person. That application came to be rejected by order dated 17/09/2009, impugned in this Writ Petition. The learned trial Court in order dated 17/09/2009 has, inter alia, observed that the Court had already come to the conclusion that the signatures of both the partners of defendant no.1 were not required to be sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion. The learned trial Court also observed that the question which arose was limited namely whether the said document i.e. affidavit-cum-declaration was signed by the plaintiff no.1 or not, as was held by the Court in the order dated 18/07/2009. 5. Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the learned trial Court had granted the application dated 22/06/2009 in its entirety except that only the costs were require to be paid by the plaintiffs entirely. Learned Counsel further submits that having granted the said application in its entirety, the learned trial Court by impugned order dated 17/09/2009 could not have come to another conclusion stating that the question was only limited to whether the affidavit-cum-declaration was signed by the plaintiff no.1 or not was required to be referred to the opinion of the handwriting expert. 6. Shri Ramani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant no.1 submits that the only prayer made by the plaintiffs in their application dated 22/06/2009 was to call for the report of the handwriting expert, regarding the signature of plaintiff no.1 on the said affidavit cum declaration and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is in consonance with the said prayer of application dated 22/06/2009. 7. Admittedly, the impugned order is an interlocutory order. In my view, the impugned order as it stands today is in consonance with the prayer of the plaintiffs in their application dated 22/06/2009. That apart, the impugned order is not likely to cause any prejudice or injustice to the plaintiffs and in the light of that I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in extraordinary jurisdiction. 8. Consequently, the Writ Petition is disposed of. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH