1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4931 OF 2011 (Mrs. Meenakshi Waghmare & others) ..Vrs.. (Mangesh Mate) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Mr. C.A. Anthony, Advocate for the petitioners.) CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 20/12/ 2011 . By this petition the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial Court on 30/04/2011, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for referring the documents mentioned in the application to the handwriting expert for obtaining his opinion on the same. According to the petitioners/plaintiffs, the burden was cast on the plaintiffs to prove that the defendant had falsely created the agreement dated 25/11/2004 and the said document did not bear the signature of Ramesh Waghmare. The petitioners have filed a similar application for referring the document to the handwriting expert for his opinion and the same was rejected. A Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner against the rejection of the application and by the order dated 25th November, 2004, this Court directed the trial Court to pass appropriate order on exh-27, the application for referring the matter to the handwriting expert after the petitioner produced the original of the documents i.e. the registered sale deed and the correction deed. 2 It appears that after the matter was remanded, the petitioner was not in a position to produce the original documents before the trial Court. The trial Court, therefore, by the impugned order dated 30.04.2011 rejected the application filed by the petitioner for referring the documents to the handwriting expert as there was only one admitted signature of Mr. R.G. Waghmare on Exh-29. The High Court held that there ought to have been more admitted signatures of Mr. R.G. Waghmare, than one for comparison of the signatures on the disputed document and for expressing the opinion. The trial Court further held that the disputed document was of the year 2005 and the original document at exh 29 was executed in the year 1987 and there was a difference of about 18 years in the alleged execution of the documents. In this background, the trial Court found that the relief could not have been granted in favour of the petitioner as the handwriting expert would not have been in a position to express his opinion for want of sufficient samples and due to the difference of 18 years in execution of the admitted documents and the disputed documents. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Deshmukh