IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20989 of 2011 Anshuman Kumar @ Anshuman Kumar Ieswar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 30.11.2011. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State of Bihar is not necessary party. Therefore, the name of respondent no.1, State of Bihar is deleted. By the impugned order dated 08.09.2011 passed by Sub Judge III, Samastipur in Title Suit No.175 of 1983, the application of the petitioner for comparing the disputed signature on the money receipt with the admitted signature appearing in the sale deed has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original money receipt and also the sale deed have been lost from the custody of the Court, therefore, the petitioner filed the photocopies of the said documents which have been marked as exhibit in the case. The petitioner in view of the above changed position filed the application for comparison of the disputed signature appearing on money receipt with the admitted signature appearing on the photocopy of the sale deed because the petitioner apprehends that if fresh report is not submitted by the expert comparing the signature on the photocopies, the Court may not consider the same. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below itself observed that the original 2 money receipt and the sale deeds were sent for comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signature and the report submitted on behalf of the plaintiff’s expert and the report submitted on behalf of the defendant’s expert are available and in such circumstances, the learned Court below rejected the prayer for fresh comparison of the signature appearing on photocopies. In view of the above observation, in my opinion, the apprehension of the petitioner is not genuine apprehension. When the Court below itself observing that the original reports are available, in my opinion also, it is not necessary for a fresh report after comparison of the signature on the photocopies. The reports which are available on report shall be considered by the Court below at the time of hearing of the suit. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)