1 wp63.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 63 of 2011 Mr. Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal & ors. ..Petitioner v/s. Hasanmiya Abdul Latif Mujawar (since deceased) through Shaukat Hassnmiya Mujawar ..Respondents Mr. Murty i/b. A.k. Jalisatgi for the petitioner. Mr. Milind Sathe with Phirdose P for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- JANUARY 14, 2011. P.C. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14th December, 2010 vide which the Application filed by the present Petitioner-plaintiff for referring document at Exhibit 221 for hand-writing expert came to be rejected. 2 wp63.11.sxw 2. It is the contention of the Petitioner that as the defendants have refused to step into the witness box, the Petitioner could not confront the defendants with the said document and as such the opinion of the hand- writing expert was necessary in the matter. 3. The Learned Trial Court has rejected the Application on the ground that it is filed at the belated stage after the matter is fixed for hearing on arguments. It is not in dispute that the written-statement has been filed by the defendants in which they have specifically denied the execution of the said document and their signatures thereon. 4. In that view of the matter, the Petitioner could have very well made such a request at an earlier stage. The Application is filed after 2002 for the first time in 2010. The case of the Plaintiff would not depend upon whether the defendant enters into witness box or not. The Plaintiff has to stand or fall on his own merits. The order impugned in purely interlocutory in nature. 5. In the event, the Petitioner does not succeed in the suit and if is required to challenge the Judgment and order passed by the Learned Trial 3 wp63.11.sxw Court, the Petitioner would always be entitled to challenge the order impugned herein in the said Appeal in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1-A of CPC. 6. The Learned Judge has given cogent and sound reasons for rejection of the Application. In the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it will be permissible to interfere only if it is found that view taken by the Learned Trial Court is either perverse or impossible. No perversity is noticed to warrant interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)