1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2009 1. Mr. Collin Joseph Mascarenhas, son of late Anthonio Mascarenhas alias Antonio Rumaldo do Coracao de Jesus Mascarenhas, aged about 52 years, businessman, and his wife, 2. Mrs. Zenia Mascarenhas, aged about 40 years, housewife, both residents of House No.369, David House, 5th Floor, Above Bank of India, Jose Inacio Loyola Road, Margao Goa. .. Petitioners V e r s u s Fr. Jose Antonio Minguel Emiterio Mascarenhas, son of late David Camilo Mascarenhas, aged about 86 years, Catholic Priest, residing at House No. 30/E, Old Age House, Opp. Hospicio Hospital, Dr. Minguel Miranda Road, Margao Goa. ... Respondent Mr. M. P. Almeida, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 23 rd JULY, 2009. 2 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. In Regular Civil Suit No. 121/2004/II the present petitioners submitted application on 18.4.2008 with prayer which reads as follows :- “In the circumstances, the Defendant no.1 prays that necessary leave be granted to him to produce the said expert opinion along with the annexures, which are hereto annexed and marked as Annexure 'A' Colly with all the legal consequences” 3. The foundation of the said application is that the defendants wanted to produce and rely upon an opinion rendered by a private handwriting expert, dated 24.3.2008, relating to plaintiff's disputed signature. It was pleaded that if production of further evidence is allowed, it would not prejudice the plaintiff in any manner. 4. The plaintiff objected the present petitioners' application, avering as follows :- “With reference to Para 2, the contents of the same are denied as false and misguiding, it is submitted that the defendants have willfully fabricated the purported document of opinion of the Expert, which is sought to be produced although the said document has no standing in the eyes of law and therefore application seeking such 3 document deserves to be dismissed out rightly. Even otherwise the motive behind production of such documents can be well established from the very fact that the defendants had objected the Application dated 18.09.2007 filed by the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff had prayed before this Hon'ble Court, for sending the disputed documents bearing the alleged signatures of the plaintiff, to the Government handwriting expert, however these defendants had vehemently objected to the said application and the said application came to be dismissed to this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.10.2007, therefore the present application under reply is only filed to put the manipulated and forged report on the record, which is untenable in the eyes of law, as no private report can be put on record, when this Hon'ble Court had already rejected the application filed by the plaintiff”. 5. Copies of application filed by the plaintiff for reference of Government examiner dated 18.9.2007 and present petitioners' reply dated 22.10.2007 and order passed on plaintiff's application ( Exhibit 38 ) are on record of Writ Petition at page 52 onwards. 6. The learned Trial Court heard the parties and dismissed the application by order dated 14.10.2008 which order is challenged in the present Writ Petition. 4 7. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has placed reliance on reported judgments namely :- (i) AIR 1973 SC 2200 in Ram Narain V/s State of Uttar Pradesh; (ii) 2006(4) ALL MR 358 in Mrs. Maria Sonia Elvira V/s Mr. Nicolau Lourenco Serverino Pereira & Ors; (iii) 2007(4) CCC 64 (A.P.) in Bayya Mohan Rao and another V/s Parsia Bala Subrahmanyeswara. . 8. This Court has perused the said citations relied upon by the petitioners. These precedents do not come to any help of the petitioners. 9. The petitioner has not explained as to what forced him to object the plaintiff's own prayer for reference of the signature denced and disputed by him the document of Government examiner and now what has constrained him to rely the opinion of private examiner of documents. 10. In the premises discussed in foregoing paras, it is evident that the plaintiff's objection to defendants' application for production of expert opinion is thus based on strong reasons. The plaintiff's objection is therefore seen to be based on strong reasons and rational than defendants' application and those are rightly relied upon by the trial Court. 5 11. The petitioners' own behaviour which disentitled them for the relief sought. The petition is devoid of any substance and, Rule is discharged with costs. A. H. JOSHI, J at*