1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.577 OF 2008 Shashikant Khaire .. Petitioner Versus Sndarabai Gorade & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Nitin Deshpande for petitioner None for respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th March 2008 P.C. . None appears for respondents despite office endorsement stating that respondent No.1 is duly served. The Court while issuing notice had passed an order that service will be effected 2 only on respondent No.1 original plaintiff, who appears to have been duly served. 2. After having perused the petition and the annexures thereto, including the impugned order, to my mind, learned Judge was not right in rejecting the request of the present petitioner for having the relinquishment deed insofar as the signatures/thumb impression thereon being compared with other documents by handwriting experts and his report being filed in court. Needless to state that if the relinquishment deed is already on record and is exhibited as such, then, irrespective of what has been observed by the trial court, it should permit a handwriting expert to report on the disputed signatures. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for such relief and the application which should be made shall be considered without in any manner influenced by any observations in the impugned order. The order under challenge is set aside also on the 3 ground that the Court should not take upon itself the task of comparing signatures straightway. That is, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed, not an exercise which is permitted as a matter of course. In such circumstances, the order under challenge is quashed and set aside with liberty to the petitioners to apply for reliefs claimed in Exh.162 and such an application if filed, shall be considered without being influenced by the earlier order. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)