1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 358 OF 2009 1. Mr. Antonio Milton Camara, s/o Francisco Xavier Camara, aged 56 years, retired serviceman, r/o Margao, Salcete, Goa. 2. Smt. Sandra Camara, Wife of Antonio Camara, Aged 43 years, housewife, r/o. House No. Margao, Salcete, Goa. ... Petitioners versus 1. Shri Keshav Sinai Kunde and Co. Near Railway gate, Behind Loyola High School, Comba, Salcete, Goa. 2. Prabakar Sinai Kunde, s/o. Late Keshav Sinai Kunde, C/o. Keshav Sinai Kunde & Co. Vissu Virginkar Building, 1st floor, Cine Lata Road, Margao-Goa. ... Respondents Shri Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri A. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 14TH JUNE, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. The Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in R.C.S. No.229/2004/II. They filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10-A seeking a commission to a handwriting expert for verifying the signature on sale deed dated 12-4-1975. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit on the ground that the signature of plaintiff no.1 as vendor no.2 on the said sale deed dated 12-4-1975 is not his. 3. The said application came to be dismissed by Order dated 27-1-2009. 4. Shri Arun Bras De Sa, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that the said signature on the said sale deed is not that of plaintiff no.1, and, therefore the plaintiffs desire to get an opinion of an expert to that effect by sending the said sale deed to an handwriting expert. 5. Shri A. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the signature on the deed of 12-4-1975 was bound to differ from the present signature of plaintiff no.1 due to lapse of time. Shri Kakodkar, learned Counsel further submits that the suit was filed in the year 2004 and the application has been filed in the year 2008, with much 3 delay. Learned Counsel also refers to a Judgment dated 19-4-1984 in First Civil Appeal No.56/B/80 by which it was held that the present plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption against the appellants in the said First Civil Appeal. 6. We could proceed on the assumption that an opinion of a handwriting expert comes within the meaning of scientific investigation as contemplated by Rule 10-A, Order 26, C.P.C. Comparison of a disputed signature with the admitted ones involves specialized skill based on study. Science of handwriting comparison not being an exact science, the opinion of handwriting expert is accepted after great circumspection. Plaintiffs have not explained as to why they have not obtained such an opinion of their own, by sending the disputed and admitted handwriting to a handwriting expert. The plaintiffs could have sought Court's assistance for appointment of a handwriting expert as a Commissioner only in the event they could not get such an opinion without the intervention of the Court. 7. With the above observation, Writ Petition is disposed off with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD