1 WP 5785/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5785 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for the petitioner. Mr. Abhijit M. Adagale for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Adagale waives service. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The petitioner challenges the order dated 12 June 2010 passed by the 15th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, rejecting the petitioner’s application for sending the disputed signature of the father of the petitioner to an handwriting expert for his opinion. 2 WP 5785/10 5. The respondent is the landlord of the suit premises. Father of the petitioner was a tenant in the suit premises wherein he was carrying on the business of a restaurant. According to the petitioner, after his father’s death he was carrying on the restaurant business in the suit premises. The respondent, however, attempted to dispossess the petitioner and obstruct him in carrying on the business in the suit premises. He, therefore, filed a suit (R.C.S. No. 561 of 2009) for injunction. The respondent contested the suit and, inter alia, contended that the father of the petitioner had surrendered the possession of the suit premises to him. The respondent produced a receipt purportedly signed by the father of the petitioner. The petitioner disputed the receipt and the alleged signature of his father below it. He, therefore, requested the Court to send the disputed signature below the alleged possession receipt to the handwriting expert for opinion by its 3 WP 5785/10 comparison to the admitted signature. That application was rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved petitioner is before this Court. 6. It is true that the report of a handwriting expert only is an aid and assistance to the Court for the purpose of coming to a conclusion whether the disputed signature is that of the petitioner’s father. However, the Court, which is not a handwriting expert, would ordinarily be guided by the opinion of an expert. Though the Court is entitled to draw its own inference, the opinion of the handwriting expert would certainly aid and assist the Court in coming to an appropriate conclusion. Since the signature is disputed and the entire matter turns on the question whether the petitioner’s father had surrendered the possession and executed the possession receipt as alleged by the respondent, it would have been appropriate for the Court to grant the request of the petitioner for sending the papers to an 4 WP 5785/10 handwriting expert. Instead of having opinion of a private handwriting expert which often found to be biased in favour of a person seeking the opinion, the petitioner had sought to send the papers to a neutral government handwriting expert through the Court. As such the request ought to have been granted. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The application of the petitioner at Exhibit 106-B is allowed. The trial court is directed to send the papers to the government handwriting expert as prayed for. The trial court shall be entitled to issue the necessary direction, if any, in the matter. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)