1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.988 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri Prashant D. Patil for the Petitioners. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th February, 2010. P.C.: . Heard Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners who are the original Plaintiffs. The Petitioners made an application praying for sending the documents disputed by the 1st Respondent for examination of the Government handwriting expert. By the impugned order dated 30th November, 2009, the trial Court has directed that the said application made by the Petitioners at Exhibit-109 shall be considered after the evidence of the 1st Respondent (1st Defendant) is recorded. 2. The 1st Respondent has disputed the signature on 2 certain documents. Therefore, the trial Court thought it fit to consider the application only after the Petitioners cross-examine the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant. There is no prejudice to the Petitioners. No interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners apprehends that if the said application is allowed after the evidence of the 1st Respondent is recorded, the Petitioners will be precluded from examining the handwriting expert. The said apprehension is uncalled for as the trial Court itself has directed that the application shall be considered after recording of evidence of the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant. If the application is allowed on merits, it is obvious that the trial Court will be bound to pass consequential order. Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J) ash