1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7902 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7902 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Mantri for the Petitioner, Advocate Mr. Sant for Respondent No.3/ original plaintiff and learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Respondent No.3 filed a suit on the basis of a document claiming it to be a will for declaration of ownership. Present petitioner opposed that suit and pointed out a registered will in his favour. The Respondent No.3 plaintiff could not produce original of alleged will and he was permitted to lead secondary evidence about its photostat copy. Accordingly, he completed his evidence and thereafter present petitioner also closed his evidence. At the stage of final arguments, on 14th June, 2010, Respondent No.3 moved an application for forwarding the photostat copy of will to 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7902 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. handwriting expert. Trial Court allowed that application. Advocate Mr. Mantri contends that application, as moved, is belated and there cannot be any comparision either of handwriting or of signature on photostate copy. He states that such comparison can be undertaken even by the trial Court. 3. Advocate Mr. Sant contends that as secondry evidence was permitted, an application to forward that document to handwriting expert came to be filed and it has been allowed by trial Court. There is no jurisdictional error. 4. With the assistance of respective counsel I have perused the impugned order and papers. Trial Court, while passing impugned order below Exhibit-81, has noted that document in dispute was a photostat copy of a will deed. It also noted that there was a document containing a specimen signature of testator viz. Ganpati and then has 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7902 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. addressed itself to a question of comparison of signatures on that photostat copy (Exhibit-64) and specimen signature at Exhibit-79 to be forwarded to the handwriting expert. It impliedly finds opinion of handwriting expert helpful to it in the matter and, therefore, has forwarded the document to that expert. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:26/04/2011. ans/7902