1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2298 OF 2010 Vaijnath s/o Sidhilingappa Khobre, age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Varvanti, Tq. & Dist.Latur. Petitioner Versus 1 Sherkhan s/o Gadukhan Pathan, age: 74 years, Occ: Business and Agriculture, R/o Patel Chowk, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. 2 Jagannath s/o Sidhilingappa Khobre, age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Varvanti, now presently residing at Shamnagar, Latur. Respondents Mr.Milind Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Ashtekar, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 09th April, 2010. P.C.: 1 Application tendered by petitioner – original defendant no.2 at Exhibit-70 in Regular Civil Suit No.29/2007, requesting the Court to send the document – sale deed dated 2 nd December 1987 for examination by hand writing expert, has been turned down by the trial Court by order dated 11.12.2009. Said order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 It is not necessary to go into factual details of the matter at this stage. Suffice it to say that in order to substantiate his case, defendant is yet to lead his evidence. It is stated that defendant does not admit the sale deed in question and further contends that the thumb impression and signature 2 appearing on the document are not of concerned defendants. 3 The trial Court, while rejecting the application, has observed that defendant has not challenged said document since date of its execution i.e. 02.12.1987 and as such, it is not open for defendant now to raise any objection in the proceedings. 4 It is to be noted that defendant has not yet opened his evidence. It is for the defendant to place on record his evidence, oral as well as documentary, to support his contentions raised in the written statement. It also does appear that the sale deed in question has not been proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act. In these circumstances, it would be for the defendant to substantiate his contentions set out in the written statement as regards genuineness of the document and after leading evidence, if defendant deems it appropriate to renew request for sending the document for securing opinion of hand writing expert, he may do so by presenting proper application at appropriate stage. If, after leading evidence, defendant deems it appropriate to tender an application, he may present application to the Court and trial Court may consider the same on its own merits. The impugned order passed at interlocutory stage below Exhibit-70 in itself will not be an impediment for reconsidering such request, if made at appropriate stage by petitioner – original defendant no.2. No interference is called for at this stage in the writ petition. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wpwp229810