-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.230 of 2008 Shri Sadanand Madhukar Kulkarni ..Petitioner vs. 1. Shri Farookh Abdul Rahim Patel and others ..Respondents Shri Uday P.Warunjikar for petitioner. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 28th February, 2008 28th February, 2008 28th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that the service on the respondents is complete. Office report says that respondent nos.1 to 5 have been served. Acknowledgement has been filed. 2. The petitioners have filed a Special Civil Suit no. 14 of 2003 for specific performance of the agreement dated 3rd March, 1989. It is not necessary to refer to the plaint allegations or the defence and the counter claim in as much as the application (Exh.53) was filed by the respondents/original defendants contending therein that they have obtained the opinion of the handwriting expert Shri Salim Khan and they want to examine him as expert witness. They -2- made an application that the inspection of the documents be granted to the hand writing expert who has to submit the report and later on examined as a witness. 3. The petitioner opposed this application contending that his evidence is over and it is not permissible to file the application of the present nature. That objection has been over ruled and the hand writing expert named in the application of the respondents is allowed to inspect the disputed documents i.e. agreement dated 4th March, 1989 produced at Exh.3/3 and other documents referred to in the order of the learned Judge. 4. I see no prejudice to the petitioners if the hand writing expert is allowed to inspect the disputed documents which are filed in Courtbut that would be at an appropriate stage. However, the only objection appears to be that the respondents who are parties to the suit have filed an application on behalf of the expert and sought permission of the court to allow him to inspect the document. Presently the said Shri Salim Khan has not given any opinion in writing and in any event even if that is submitted to -3- the respondents/defendants they have not filed it in Court or placed it on record of the suit. Further, the handwriting expert has not filed any application requesting the Court to allow him inspection of the suit record. Therefore, the application by the respondents was clearly premature. As and when they place on record the opinion of the said expert or the expert desires that before he renders any opinion one way of the other, he would like to inspect the Court record, then, in either event, it will be open for all concerned to make an application for inspection of the Court record. At this stage, when the impugned order does not indicate anything and when even the defendants have yet to step into the witness box, the learned Judge should not have proceeded to consider the request and pass the impugned order. 5. In the result, the order under challenge is set aside with liberty to the defendants to place on record the opinion of the hand writing expert and also examine him as a witness and prior thereto request the Court for inspection of the Court record either by themselves or by hand writing expert. Thus, before the hand writing expert deposes in Court he would be at -4- liberty to inspect the court record if he so desires or if he wants to make an application, even prior to the submission of the report, for inspection of the Court record, either he or the defendnats/respondents before me, are at liberty to seek that relief. With these clarification and protection the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petition is disposed of. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)