ssm 1 907.wp.1389.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1389 OF 2010 Mrs. Kranti Mukund Natu and others ....Petitioners Versus Smt. Sunita Vitthal Gadgil and others ....Respondents ________ Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for the Petitioners. Mr. R. S. Desai for the Respondents. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 18 TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: By way of the present Petition, Petitioner has raised twofold challenges (i) that the learned Trial Court has permitted the Defendants to produce certain documents at the stage of cross- examination which is contrary to the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Order XII, Rule 1 thereof and (ii) that the learned Trial Court has allowed the application for referring certain documents to the handwriting expert ssm 2 907.wp.1389.10 for his opinion. 2. The Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. The suit is resisted by some of the Defendants contending that the property in question has been given to them under the family arrangement which was reduced in writing vide the affidavit dated 18 th January, 1966. The document in question i.e. the affidavit dated 18 th January, 1966 was produced by the said Defendants at the stage of cross-examination. After the Plaintiff denied her signature thereto, an application came to be filed for referring the said documents to the handwriting expert, alongwith the signature on Vakalatnama. The said application is allowed. Hence, the present Petition. 3. Shri. Kanetkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in permitting the said documents to be placed on record in suit. It is submitted that though the Petitioner has referred to the said documents in the written statement, the same were not produced ssm 3 907.wp.1389.10 alongwith the written statement and that under Order VIII, Rule 1A, the same could not have been produced on record at a later stage. He, further submits that the learned Trial Court has also erred in sending the said documents to the handwriting expert. 4. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent on the contrary submit that in view of the provisions of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 1A of the Order VIII, no error could be found with the impugned order. He, however submit that since the Plaintiff has denied his signature on the document in question it was necessary that the same be referred to the handwriting expert. 5. Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 1A of Order VIII reads thus- “1-A-Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.- (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.” ssm 4 907.wp.1389.10 6. It is not a dispute that the document in question has been produced for the cross examination to the Plaintiff by the Defendants”. In that view of the matter, the contention of the Petitioner in view of provisions of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 1A of Order VIII would be without substance. In sofar as the second challenge is concerned, the learned Trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons for allowing the application for sending the documents in question to the handwriting expert for comparison with the signature of the Plaintiff on Vakalatnama. 7. In that view of the matter, no error could be noticed with the approach adopted by the learned trial Court. Hence, Rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)