1 W.P.No.9085/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9085 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.G.S.Rane, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Sadawarte, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 29.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner impugns the order dated 6.9.2011, rejecting the application of the petitioner for sending the document i.e. sale deed to the handwriting expert. 3. Mr.Rane, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that there are admitted signatures of the deceased by which the signatures can be compared. It is a specific case of the petitioner that deceased has not executed the sale deed but some fictitious person was put forth and the sale deed was got executed. Earlier also three suits were filed but the same were withdrawn when the petitioner raised this plea of sending the document to the handwriting expert. The 2 W.P.No.9085/11 opinion of the handwriting expert would be effective for the adjudication of the dispute and coming to the just conclusion. The plaintiff is claiming his possession on the basis of the said alleged sale deed. As such the genuineness of the signatures of deceased Mukunda is relevant. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the said document is sent to the handwriting expert. 4. It has been observed by the Court that the suit is only for simpliciter injunction. The defendant/present petitioner has not challenged the legality of the said sale deed. In such circumstances, when no relief is claimed in respect of the said sale deed, the Court did not think it necessary to sent the said document to the handwriting expert. As the suit is for simpliciter injunction, the factum of possession on the date of filing of the suit would be relevant. If at all some declaration would have been asked about the status pursuant to the sale deed or declaration with regard to the said sale deed then the question of referring the said document to the handwriting expert could have been considered. 5. The Court below has exercised the discretion. Even the Court is empowered to compare the signatures from the admitted and disputed signatures. 6. In light of the above, no interference is called for. The Writ 3 W.P.No.9085/11 Petition is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.29.11.2011. asp/office/wp9085.11 4 W.P.No.9085/11