KBP 1 wp2561-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2561 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s order Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr.R.V.Govilkar, for petitioner. Mr.M.N.Jain, for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13 th December, 2010 P.C. The petitioner is a disputant in the Dispute filed under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The dispute is at the stage of final hearing. An application was made by petitioner in the dispute which has been rejected by the impugned order which has been confirmed in Revision Application. The prayer made in the said application reads thus :- “ The Disputant therefore humbly prays that the signature on the original nomination form dt.18.4.1996 (Exh.52/1) may be compared with the signature of late Shri.S.R.Gadgil on Exh.42/5/2/ and Exh.52/2. The signature on the last three documents are admitted to be the signatue of late Shri.S.R.Gadil; whereas on the original nomination form Exh.52/1 is a disputed signature and that after comparing the said signature, the Honourable Court may be kind enough to record her opinion or impression about genuineness of the disputed signature.” KBP 2 wp2561-10.sxw 2] By the impugned order dated 18 th January, 2010, learned Judge of the Co-operative Court observed that in view of the observations made by this Court, the opinion in respect of disputed signature will have to be recorded at the time of finally deciding the dispute. In paragraph 3 of the impugned order, learned Judge observed thus :- “3) So it is not the stage to record the opinion as per the order of the Hon’ble Court. The comparison will be made and the opinion, it possible, will be given at the later stage as mentioned above, Hence, this application is rejected at this stage. No order as to costs” 4] Therefore, learned Judge of the Co-operative Court has not finally rejected the application and he has observed that the comparison will be made and the opinion will be recorded at appropriate stage. 5] In view of what is stated in paragraph 3 of the impugned order which has been confirmed in Revision, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is rejected. [ A.S. OKA, J.]