1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10096 OF 2009 Shri Shashikant Shankar Khaire. .. Petitioner Versus Sundarabai Keshav Gorade &Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri N.P. Deshpande for the Petitioner. Shri U.B.Nighot for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C: . Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. 2. The Petitioner is the 3rd Defendant and the 1st Respondent is the 1st original Plaintiff. The trial Court had permitted the Petitioner to obtain opinion of a handwriting and finger print expert. Accordingly, the handwriting and finger print expert submitted a report as regards the disputed signature and thumb impression. An application was made by the handwriting and finger print expert before the trial Court pointing out that the photograph of the thumb impression is blurred though the same is magnified and enlarged. He pointed out that clear photographs of the disputed thumb impression are required to be taken out. He pointed out in the application that if fresh photographs are permitted to be taken in a 2 photo studio, heavy lights, filters etc. can be used for getting the good results. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that even in the report of the handwriting and finger print expert, it was stated that due to blurred print, definite final opinion cannot be given. He submitted that as the Petitioner has been permitted to produce the opinion of the handwriting expert, the expert ought to have been permitted to take proper photographs. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent submitted that the application was not made by the Petitioner but was made by the so called expert. He submitted that at the instance of the expert, no such orders can be passed as prayed by the Petitioner. He submitted that the expert has gone to the extent of filing written submissions. He submitted that as the expert could not give a clear opinion, he cannot be permitted to give further opinion. 4. I have considered the submissions. The learned trial Judge has observed that even if fresh photographs are taken, there is no guarantee that clear prints of thumb impression will be available. The report dated 8th July, 2009 submitted by the expert records that the prints of the admitted and the disputed thumb impressions were blurred and, therefore, identification points cannot be traced. He, therefore, stated that the final opinion cannot be given. 3 5. All that the handwriting and finger print expert had suggested was that the documents can be taken to an appropriate photo studio where requisite equipments could be available so that clear photographs of the thumb impressions can be taken. Earlier photographs were taken in the Court premises. The Petitioner has been already permitted to produce the opinion of the handwriting and finger print expert. To enable the handwriting expert to give proper opinion, there should not be denial of an opportunity to the said expert to take out photographs by taking the documents to the photo studio. It is not necessary to part with the custody of the documents to the said expert. An officer of the Court can be appointed so that he can always take documents to the photo studio and under his supervision, the expert can take out photographs. The name of the photo studio and its address is given by the Counsel for the Petitioner and the same is placed on record. There is no prejudice to the 1st Respondent if fresh photographs are permitted to be taken and opinion is allowed to be filed inasmuch as settled position of law is that the opinion of the handwriting and finger print expert is never conclusive and it is merely an opinion evidence. 6. Hence, I pass following order. (a) The impugned order dated 2nd November, 2009 is quashed and set aside. 4 (b) The trial Court will appoint one of its officers as a Court Commissioner with a direction to the said officer to take the disputed and admitted documents to Jogalekar Photo Studio, Opp: S.T. Stand, Phul Sundar Building, Narayangaon, Taluka – Junnar, District – Pune. The custody of the documents will always remain with the officer appointed by the trial Court. The said officer of the Court will permit the expert to take photographs of the said documents in the photo studio in presence of both the parties. (c) It is obvious that a suitable date for this purpose will be fixed by the officer of the Court after sufficient notice to the parties. (d) The Petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J) ash