1 W.P.No.6682/11. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6682 OF 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Dr.Mrs.Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff who had filed suit for injunction against the present Respondents. The parties led their evidence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments. At that stage, the petitioner moved an application for referring a document styled as consent deed to the hand writing expert. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Dr. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has rejected the application for 2 W.P.No.6682/11. referring the document i.e. consent deed to the hand writing expert solely on the ground that it is filed at the stage of arguments. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case of "Guru Govindu V. Devarapu Venkataramana" reported in AIR 2006 Andhra Pradesh 371. The learned counsel contends that the said document bears the thumb impression of the Respondent No.1 and it was erroneous on the part of the trial Court to observe that the said document does not bear the thumb impression. According to the learned counsel Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. lays down a mandate to refer such a document to hand writing expert and that would be one of the corroborative evidence. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the application, the order. Initially, the present petitioner had filed an application to exhibit the said document i.e. the consent deed. The trial Court rejected the application. The petitioner, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 1536/2011. This Court rejected the said Writ Petition on the ground that the said document is not proved. Liberty was given to the petitioner for taking appropriate steps, if open in law, for proving the said document. Thereafter, the instant application for referring the document to the hand writing expert was filed. 5. If the Court feels that by referring a document to the hand 3 W.P.No.6682/11. writing expert, it would assist the Court in elucidating the matter then the Court can exercise that power even after parties have closed their evidence. There is no impediment for the Court to exercise the said powers even at the stage of arguments but in the present matter even this Court while rejecting the Writ Petition No. 1536/2011, which was filed against the order passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application for exhibiting the document has observed as under : "2. It is apparent that in his examination in chief plaintiff/petitioner has avoided to state on oath anything about the identify of person either signing or making thumb impression on disputed consent deed. In cross-examination of petitioner/plaintiff defendant has not confronted him with said document. Only his defence that document is bogus, has been put and that has been denied by the plaintiff. In his examination in chief defendant again has stated that alleged consent deed is bogus." 5. Thus, it would be seen that the said document is not at all proved. Even the agreements which are referred by the petitioner in the applications i.e. agreement of sale Exh.31 and Exh.30, the trial Court has found that the said documents do not bear the thumb impression of the Respondent No.1. As such, there is no other document as is shown by the petitioner by which the thumb impression is to be referred. 4 W.P.No.6682/11. 6. Moreover, as the basic ingredients required for proving the document itself are absent, no purpose would be served by sending the said document to hand writing expert. 7. In light of the above, the Writ Petitions being sans merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.07.09.2011. asp/office/wp6682.11 5 W.P.No.6682/11.