1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8305 OF 2010 Prakash Mahadeo Gavad. .. Petitioner V E R S U S Haridas Krishna Lomte & Anr .. Respondents ... Shri S.S.Choudhari,Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Tikle,Advocate for respondents 1 & 2. .... CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 1] An interlocutory order passed by the trial Court below Exh. 162 in Regular Civil Suit No.85/83 on 4/8/2010 is subjected to challenge in the instant Petition. 2 2] Petitioner herein has presented an application requesting the Court to send the disputed signature appearing on the Will Deed alongwith the admitted signature of the attesting witness for examination of the expert. Application was opposed by respondents contending therein that the request for referring the document for verifying the signature of the witness appearing on the said document is improper and would not serve any purpose in determining the controversy involved in the matter. Apart from this, it is brought to the notice that the said witness has not yet been cross examined by the petitioner. It transpires on perusal of the application that the witness has not denied the contents of the document, which are stated to be in the handwriting of the witness. However, some matter appearing on the document such as attestation of the signatures and handwriting below said signature, has been denied by the witness. Option is available with the petitioner to cross examine said witness. Even otherwise, there is no propriety in 3 directing a reference of the document for purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the handwriting of the witness, who has scribed the said document. Application tendered by the petitioner does not serve any purpose for adjudicating the controversy involved in the matter between the parties. Considering the interlocutory nature of the proceedings, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. The another aspect that the suit is presented in the year 1983 and is yet pending for final disposal even after a period of about 27 years, is also a matter to be taken into account, while considering the instant petition. Petition is devoid of substance. Hence stands rejected. No order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ... 4 umg/wp8305-10