1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1064 OF 2010 (Jagdish R. Makwana vs. Vilas M. Saoji) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 19, 2010. Heard Shri Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the respondent. The dispute between the petitioner – tenant and the respondent – landlord is about the quantum of monthly rent. According to the respondent – landlord, it is Rs. 1,200/- per month and according to the petitioner – tenant, it is Rs.40/- per month. After the landlord examined himself and one Satputle, the tenant of adjacent premises, the present petitioner had filed on record the documents purporting to be the original rent receipts issued by the respondent – landlord to said Satputle, showing that the rent of Satputle was also Rs.40/- per month. In view of these documents, the petitioner then filed notice to admit these documents and also to produce the counter-foil with the landlord. In view of the denial by the 2 respondent, the petitioner filed an application at Exh. 67 for calling an opinion of expert about the signatures on rent receipts of the landlord issued to Satputle. That application has been rejected on 12.02.2010 by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khamgaon, District – Buldhana. During hearing, Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that Satputle has specifically stated that no rent receipts were being issued to him by his landlord at any point of time. According to him, in view of this specific assertion and material on record, the said receipts are still not connected to the respondent – landlord and hence the rejection of application, as moved is correct. Shri Naidu, learned counsel contends that wife of the tenant Satputle herself has given those original receipts to the petitioner. The facts shows that the said documents have come on record after the evidence of the plaintiff and evidence of Satputle is over. The documents are not put to them. There is nothing on record to show that the receipts have been issued by the respondent to Satputle and as yet the petitioner has not connected those receipts with the respondent. In this situation, I find that the application as moved is premature. The order of rejection, therefore, cannot be interfered with at this stage. 3 Writ petition is, therefore dismissed. The petitioner – tenant is at liberty to file proper/ appropriate application before the trial Court in this respect. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.