IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17615 of 2011 Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya Versus Shyamlee Bhattacharjee & Ors ----------- 03. 24.10.2011 Heard learned counsel, Mr. A.B. Ojha appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the order dated 14.09.2011, 20.09.2011 and 23.09.2011 passed by A.D.J. I, Katihar in title suit no.2 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application of the defendants-respondents to send the disputed signature of Naresh Chandra Bhattacharjee appearing on the registered Will dated 13.04.2004(Exhibit 7) for comparison with the admitted signature of said Naresh Chandra Bhattacharjee appearing in the plaint of probate case no.2 of 1988 and plaint of title suit no.141 of 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are recent documents wherein admitted signature of said Naresh Chandra Bhattacharjee is available vide Annexure 4, Exhibit 3 in the Court below but the learned Court below did not send the same for comparison. The learned counsel further submitted that the photographs were never taken in presence of the petitioner and when objection was filed by the petitioner on 2 23.09.2011, it was kept on record. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that earlier regarding the same matter, by Annexure-6 i.e. order dated 18.05.2011, this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9034 of 2011 ordered that the trial court should appoint suitable signature expert commissioner by order of the choice of the Court not by choice of any party. Pursuant to the said order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9034 of 2011, the defendants-respondents filed application before the Court below for sending the disputed signature for comparison with admitted signature. After hearing the parties and considering the direction passed by this Court, the learned Court below passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2011. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recent documents wherein admitted signature are available which has been marked as Exhibit-3 in the case is concerned, it appears that no such point was raised or pressed before the Court below at the time of passing the impugned order. Further, it appears that on 20.09.2011, both the parties were present through their Advocates and on the prayer of the defendants, photographs were permitted to be taken and the office was directed to send the same for comparison. On the same date everything was done. From perusal of the order dated 23.09.2011, again both the parties filed their attendance through their 3 Advocates. The defendants filed the photographs of the signatures but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner refused to receive the same. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below passed the order pursuant to the direction given by this Court as contained in Annexure-6. So far the submission that the recent document is available is concerned, that was never raised before the Court below. If such question is raised before the Court below by filing application by the petitioner, the Court below shall pass necessary order according to law. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)