1 WP-9179.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9179 OF 2011 Shreerang Narayan Patange & ors. : Petitioners. versus Vasant Narayan Patange : Respondent. Mr.Anand S Patil for the Petitioners. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 17th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 30/9/2009 by which order the Application purportedly filed for review of the order dated 22/8/2007 came to be rejected. The said order dated 22/8/2007 was passed in Regular Civil Suit No.68 of 2004. The subject matter of the said application were certain documents which were referred to the Hand Writing Expert which included the partition deed which is a crucial document on which the parties rely. A reference was earlier made to the Hand Writing Expert i.e. the Chief Examiner of Documents, Government of Maharashtra, Pune, the said authority by letter dated 18/1/2007 had written to the trial Court that the signatures of one N C Patange affixed in the usual course of business between the period from 1976 to 1978 should be sent. It appears that the parties were accordingly informed. The parties i.e. the Defendant produced document Exhibit­81 and the Plaintiff produced document Exhibit 79. The trial Court on the basis that to decide the suit fairly and finally and in the interest of justice referred the 2 WP-9179.11.sxw said documents to the Hand Writing Expert. It appears that in view of the fact that the said requisition made by the Chief Examiner of Documents in respect of the signatures for the period of 1976 to 1978 could not be complied with, the Petitioner had filed the said application, which, as indicated above, has been dismissed by the trial Court principally for the reason that the requisition made by the Chief Examiner of Documents has not been complied with. 2 The learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that his client is not in possession of any documents for the period from 1976 to 1978, and therefore, he is not able to comply with the requisition made by the Chief Examiner of Documents. 3 In my view, the reasons for rejection of the review application given by the trial Court cannot be faulted with in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. The Hand Writing Expert had requisitioned the documents for the period between 1976­78 which can be said to be contemporaneous to express an opinion on the documents, which had been referred to him. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]