1 W.P.No.7133/11 with W.P.No.7137/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7133 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7137 OF 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 20.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The Respondents in both these petitions have filed appeal before the School Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application for referring the documents styled as resignation letter and other documents to hand-writing expert. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitions are filed. 3. Mr.Gunale, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was erroneous on the part of the Tribunal to observe that the documents can not be referred to the hand-writing expert on the 2 W.P.No.7133/11 with W.P.No.7137/11 ground that the proceedings are summary in nature. The Tribunal has got all the powers of the Civil Court exercising its original jurisdiction. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of " Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque Vs. S.A.Azmi and others" reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J.249. According to the learned counsel the report of the hand writing expert would assist the Court in arriving at the just conclusion. The learned counsel contends that the matter in is issue requires the opinion of an expert. 4. No doubt, it has been held in the case of "Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque Vs. S.A.Azmi and others" referred supra that the appellate powers exercised by the School Tribunal are similar to the powers exercised by the Civil Court in its original jurisdiction. The report of the hand writing expert is not an evidence in itself to come to any definite conclusion. U/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court is empowered to compare the signatures to draw the conclusion. Whether the assistance of an expert's evidence is required or not is left to the satisfaction of the Court dealing with the matter. If the Court is satisfied that it can arrive at the conclusion by comparing the signatures/handwriting then there is no need to refer the document to the handwriting expert. 5. In light of above, no error is committed while rejecting the 3 W.P.No.7133/11 with W.P.No.7137/11 said application. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.20.09.2011. asp/office/wp7133.11 4 W.P.No.7133/11 with W.P.No.7137/11