1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7005 OF 2008 Renukadas S/o.Sakharampant Naik, Age-65 years, Occu-Pensioner and Agril. R/o.Kawatichawada, Jadhavmandi, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS Smt.Indubai Kalyan Ingale, Age-40 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Kolghar, Tq. And Dist : Aurangabad RESPONDENT Mr.P.N.Sonpethkar, advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Bhosale, advocate for respondent absent even though repeatedly called out. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 16/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.223 /2008 is challenging the order passed below Exh.38, dated 10/11/2008, by the 5th Jt.Civil Judge, S.D. Aurangabad (Mr.A.B.Bhillare). 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner plaintiff that the plaintiff has filed suit for the cancellation of Registered Sale deed and recovery of possession of the agricultural land against the respondent 2 defendant on the allegations that the petitioner and respondent have entered into a Registered Sale Deed on 08/01/2007 for the consideration of Rs.1,58,0000/- It is alleged that at the time of execution of the sale deed, only an amount in the sum of Rs.58,000/- was paid to the petitioner and remaining amount in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was remained to be paid. The respondent has agreed to pay this amount for which a document was executed on the same day i.e. on 17/01/2007. In the written statement filed by the respondent in the said suit, of which the copy is at page no.12 of the compilation, in the said written statement there is no denial of the execution of the sale deed as alleged by the petitioner, but there is denial that at that time, only an amount of Rs.58,000/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondent and remaining balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was yet to be paid. There is denial about the execution of the document dated 17/01/2007. It appears that during the pendancy of the suit, an application was moved in view of denial of the execution of the document dated 17/01/2007 while admission of document executed on 08/01/2007. An application was moved by the petitioner to refer both these documents to the Finger Print Expert to examine the thumb impression of the respondent on those documents. Vide order dated 27/08/2008, it was returned as not necessary by the Trial Judge. It further appears that thereafter an application was moved by the respondent herein on 10/11/2008 to refer the document dated 17/01/2007 to the Finger Print Expert which is objected by the present petitioner, but instantly this application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. 3 3. It is the anxiety of the learned advocate for petitioner that considering the conduct of the Trial Judge when the similar application was moved by the petitioner, it was returned to the petitioner as not necessary, but when the similar application was moved by the respondent, then it was instantly allowed by the same Learned Trial Judge, shows the conduct of the Trial Judge about the discrimination exercised by him while deciding the proceeding. 4. In a procedural Law, when it is alleged that more than one document is executed by the same person out of which one is admitted and one is disputed, then the disputed as well as the admitted, both the documents to be referred to the Expert for his opinion about the signatures of the signatories on the document and if the parties are illiterate, then to verify the genuineness of the thumb impression of the parties on such document. While referring the documents to the Hand Writing or Finger Print Expert, it is expected that the care to be taken by the authority to refer the admitted as well as disputed document to the Expert. While referring the document, discrimination was done at the hands of Trial Judge which require the interference of this Court as no such discrimination is allowed during the course of legal proceedings. Even though respondents have filed the appearance in this Court, but they failed to appear when the matter is called out and considering the nature of the grievance placed by the petitioner before me, I did not feet it that I have to wait for the appearance of the respondent, when they have filed their appearance in this Court. 4 5. With these observations, it is directed to the Trial Court to send the document dated 08/01/2007 admitted by the petitioner and respondent as well as the document dated 17/01/2007 which is disputed by the respondent about her thumb impression on that document for the examination of the Finger Print Expert forthwith. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The Learned Trial Judge (Mr.A.B.Bhillare) is hereby directed that in his judicial functions hereinafter he is not supposed to do any discrimination amongst the parties while performing his duties. The copy of this order be sent to the concern Civil Judge S.D. at Aurangabad. With these directions writ petition stands disposed of. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp7005-08