1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1643 OF 2010. Mrs. Meenakshi Ramesh Ramesh and others. -: VERSUS :- Mangesh Vidhyadhar Mate Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 25, 2010. Heard Shri J.A. Anthony, learned Counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs and Shri N.D. Khamborkar, learned Counsel for respondent/defendant. Rule, made returnable forthwith and petition is heard finally by consent of parties. According to Shri Anthony, learned Counsel for petitioners signature of deceased in Marathi on a registered Sale deed as also correction deed is available and photostat copies of those documents were already on record of trial Court in Civil Suit No.892 of 2007. According to Shri Khamborkar, learned Counsel 2 for respondent those signatures are not admitted and he further states that the original documents were not on record. In the alternative and without prejudice, he points out that Special Civil Suit No. 611/2010 filed by the present respondent against the present petitioners concerning very subject matter is pending before the same Court and is being listed on the same date. According to him both these suits need to be tried together. Shri Anthony, learned Counsel states that he has no objection and he will also file vakalatnama on behalf of unserved defendants in Civil Suit No.611/2010. He however, states that the opinion of hand writing expert in the matter is essential and documents must be referred to hand writing expert. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have perused the impugned order passed below Exh.27. It appears that the trial Court has not referred to photostat copies of Sale deed and correction deed, as original were not filed before it. Without making any observations about the nature of those documents, or about the nature of signature of deceased appearing on the deed, I find it appropriate to permit the trial Court to apply its mind to those documents. The petitioners before this Court shall 3 produce the originals of those documents before the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and shall also give photostat copies of those originals to the present respondent. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed to rehear the parties on application Exh.27 and pass appropriate orders on it. Only for that purpose the impugned order dated 10.08.2009 is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders on Exh.27 after the originals are produced, as early as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks thereafter. The proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 892/2007 and Civil Suit No. 611/2010 are consolidated together for their joint trial in accordance with the law. As the old suit is of the year 2007, the trial Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of 8 months from the date of passing of the communication of this order to it. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.