1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 551 OF 2010 Dilip S. Mulay .. Petitioner Vs. Pradip S. Mulay & Ors. .. Respondents Petitioner in person. Mr. Tushar P. Menkudale i/b Mr. M. S. Karnik for Respdt No.1. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 28th January, 2010. P.C. 1. Petitioner challenged the order of learned 6th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane dated 17.11.2009 passing an order in Suit No. 1303 of 2006 rejecting the application of the petitioner to obtain the handwriting expert’s opinion about the signatures of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances on a registered Will produced in the suit which the petitioner challenges as forged and fabricated. 2. The petitioner has placed reliance upon two xerox 2 copies of the last page of the document showing the registration. The xerox copies show the signatures of Sub-Registrar of Assurances different in one document then in another. One document is initialled. It also contains typewritten names whereas the first xerox copy shows handwritten names of the executors. 3. The learned Judge has correctly observed that only the opinion of handwriting expert would not be required to prove forgery, if any. The learned Judge has also correctly observed that the parties would required to lead evidence and propounder of the will would require to prove it. The parties can be cross-examined. Similarly the Sub-Registrar, if required, can be summoned to give evidence since his signatures, prima facie, are different. As a public servant he would be liable and responsible for the forgery if any. He would also be required to be examined about the documents that are executed in his presence. Hence, the learned Judge has correctly observed that he could be examined or cross- examined by the parties. 4. The application for insisting upon the handwriting expert’s opinion at the stage when the parties have themselves not 3 led evidence and not examined the person whose signature seems to be different is rightly considered as serving no purpose. 5. Hence, the order dated 17.11.2009 does not require any interference. The trial shall proceed. The parties shall lead evidence with regard to the execution of the will by themselves as well as through the evidence of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances before whom the will was sought to be executed. Either party may cause to be summoned the Sub-Registrar of Assurances even if he has retired. The learned Judge may then consider whether he would require the handwriting expert’s opinion and only if required call for the same. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations and directions. (R. S. DALVI, J.)