1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4456 OF 2009 Subhash s/o Gangadhar Zine, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Maniknagar, Ahmednagar. Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus Bandu s/o Sahadu Kulange, Age: 51 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. "Shiv Prasad", Near Lalit Vachanalaya, Shivneri Marg, Station Road, Ahmednagar, Tq & Dist.Ahmednagar & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr. A.S. Zarekar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 & 2. Mr. A.N. Londe, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 3 & 4. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2 2. Present petition is preferred by original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24-06-2009 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Ahmednagar, rejecting the petitioners' application below Exh. 114 in Special Civil Suit No. 68 of 2004 for referring agreement to sell dated 20-05-1990 to the Handwriting Expert. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased suit property from respondent No. 3 - original defendant No.1 after respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 68 of 2004 in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Ahmednagar for specific performance of the agreement. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 68 of 2004 on the basis of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by respondent No. 3 - original defendant No.1. They further submitted that 3 respondent No. 3 never executed the said document and thumb impression on the said document is not of original defendant No.1. Therefore, it is necessary to send the said document to Handwriting Expert. In view of these facts, the petitioners preferred application below Exh. 114 dated 20-10-2007. Said application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 24-06-2009 by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Ahmednagar on the ground that respondent No. 3 - original defendant No. 1 specifically admitted in her W.S. Para 12 that the said agreement to sell was executed by her but respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - original plaintiffs obtained her thumb impression by misrepresentation and fraud. Therefore, one thing is clear that original defendant No.1 admitted the execution of the said document and therefore, there is no question of sending the said document to the Handwriting Expert. 4. In view of these facts, present Writ 4 Petition is dismissed summarily. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/SEP09/wp4456.09