spb/- 1 wp9838-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9838 OF 2010 Mr. Ramakant Narayan Patil, since deceased through Lrs. & Ors.. ... Petitioners. V/s. Mr. Chidanand Narayan Patil & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Rahul More i/by Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioners. Mr. Achyut S. Patil for Respondents-1(a) 1(c) & 2. --- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 20th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 By an order dated 20th April, 2010, the trial court directed that the signature of the deceased on the alleged Will be sent to the hand writing expert for comparison with the admitted signature of the deceased. The petitioner was directed to produce documents, containing the admitted signatures of the deceased for the purpose of comparison. It appears that the petitioner summoned the Bank Manager for production of specimen signatures of the deceased and accordingly, the documents alleged to contain specimen signatures were produced by the Bank Officer. However, the documents containing alleged specimen signatures spb/- 2 wp9838-10.sxw were disputed by the other side. The Bank Officer who has produced the document containing the alleged specimen signatures was not in a position to testify that the specimen signatures of the deceased were made in his presence or to prove those signatures as provided in the Evidence Act. The trail court, therefore, declined to rely on those signatures for comparison with the disputed signature. I find no error in the order of the trial court as the specimen signatures were not admitted and were not proved. 2 There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]