1 wp2001.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 2001 of 2011 Prakash Laxman Chanderkar ... Petitioner v/s. Prasanna Tukaram Kubal & anr. ... Respondents Mr. Rajiv Narula with Pramod Bhosle i/b. Jhangiani Narula & ass. For the petitioner. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar i/b. Sudhir Prabhu for respondents 1 & 2. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 29, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17th January, 2011 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner directing the witness who is a hand-writing expert to take photographs of the original sale deed and one Vakalatnama, came to be rejected. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the photographs are taken, the veracity of the report of the hand writing expert cannot be ascertained and as such in the interest of justice the learned trial 2 wp2001.11.sxw Court ought to have allowed the application. 3. In a suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff an opinion was obtained by a private hand-writing expert prior to filing of the suit. The witness who was hand-writing expert was being examined by the plaintiff as their witness. At this stage such an application came to be filed. The learned trial Court found that even if such photographs were permitted to be taken, an opinion given by the handwriting expert on the basis of such photographs, cannot be linked with the previous opinion. 4. No perversity is noticed with the approach adopted by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application. Petition is, therefore, rejected. 5. Needless to state that if the petitioner so desire, they can make a fresh application for referring the document to the hand-writing expert. If such an application is made, the same would be considered by the learned trial Court without being influenced by the observations made by it in the impugned order. (B.R. GAVAI, J)