( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5716 OF 2010 Ramsing s/o Lumbha Rathod, R/o Pundliknagar, Gakheda Parisar, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS Rukhaiyabegum w/o Alibin Syeedbin Havel, R/o Neharunagar, Katkat Gate, Aurangabad RESPONDENT .... Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Deshpande, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th August, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is original defendant in Suit (R.C.S. No. 300/2007), challenges order rendered by the learned Ist Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), ( 2 ) Aurangabad whereby his application (Exh-41) for sending admitted signature of witness – Arif Omar Chotani and the sale-deed No. 4041/8/9/1999 for comparison and opinion of handwriting expert, came to be rejected. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of ownership and injunction. She asserted that she purchased plot Nos. 27 and 28 out of land Gat No. 25, situated in the proximity of village Satara, by virtue of a sale-deed dated 09-07-1999 executed by said Arif Omar Chotani. The petitioner also claimed to have purchased the same property from same vendor i.e. Arif Omar Chotani. The respondent (plaintiff) examined the vendor in support of her claim. He corroborated her version regarding due execution of the sale-deed in her favour. He denied the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent also examined a witness by name Kadirkhan s/o Dastagirkhan, who asserted that he signed a sale-deed impersonating himself as Arif Omar Chotani. he stated that the petitioner had paid him money for such impersonation. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, it is manifestly clear that ( 3 ) there exists a real dispute as to who impersonated the vendor i.e. Arif Omar Chotani. According to the petitioner, signature of said Arif Omar Chotani is forged on the sale-deed which is relied upon by the respondent whereas the respondent alleges that the sale-deed was obtained by the petitioner by impersonating said Arif Omar Chotani. In such a case, whether there is a serious dispute about the signature of the vendor and apparently, there is a case to infer fabrication of either of the document, by either of the party and there is possibility of offence being committed in respect of the document filed before the civil Court, it is always essential to verify the authenticity by sending such a document to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion. Not only that, the sale-deed relied upon by the respondent shall be sent but also the sale-deed relied upon by the petitioner also shall be sent to the handwriting expert for the purpose of opinion and report. For, it is a serious matter which cannot be tolerated by the civil Court but the learned Civil Judge is required to take cognizance under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence of purgery/forgery and necessary action will be possible only when there is prima facie proof in the shape of opinion of handwriting expert. In such a case, the impugned order is ( 4 ) totally erroneous and impermissible. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Civil Judge shall call witness – Arif Omar Chotani to give his specimen signature before the Court, in presence of counsel for both the sides, and thereafter, shall send the admitted signatures recorded before the Court alongwith the original sale-deeds relied upon by the parties to the handwriting expert, C.I.D. (Pune), on payment of necessary amount by the petitioner within period of three (3) weeks hereafter. The opinion of the handwriting expert may be called on both the documents. So also, PW Kadirkhan s/o Dastagirkhan also shall be called before the Court and his signature may be obtained in presence of the counsel for the parties and same shall be forwarded for the purpose of opinion to the same handwriting expert in order to give opinion as to whether it tallies with the signature on the sale-deed relied upon by the petitioner. The opinion shall be expeditiously called by issuing the necessary request letter at the earliest. The petitioner is directed to furnish his original sale-deed within period of two (2) weeks before the trial Court and if it is not so submitted, the petitioner’s defence may be struck off. In case forgery of any document is noticed, ( 5 ) the learned Civil Judge shall take appropriate action under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code without fail. Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5716-10