1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7369 OF 2008 Sayyed Daut S/o Sayyed Maheboob } Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Upali, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Achut S/o Pandurang Kekan } Age : 40 Years, Occ. Agril. } R/o : Chategaon, Tq. Dharur, } Dist. : Beed. } 2. Jubeda Begum W/o Shaikh Sultan } Age : 50 Years, Occ. : Household } R/o : Chategaon, Tq. Dharur, } Dist. : Beed. } 3. Vitthal S/o Rajaram Kekan } Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Agril. } R/o : Chategaon, Tq. Dharur, } Dist. : Beed. } 4. Udhav S/o Vithhal Kekan } Age : 30 Years, Occ.: Agril., } R/o : Chategaon, Tq. Dharur, } Dist. : Beed. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. B.S.Kudale, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.S.Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No. 1,3 & 4. 2 [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 14/09/2009 JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order below Exh. 66 in Regular Civil Suit No. 84 of 2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dharur dated 6/9/2008. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the pleadings in the Petition and grounds therein and more particularly ground no. 5 and submitted that the main controversy in the Suit is that the sale deed in question is not executed either by the petitioner and his father or respondent no. 2 and that they have not signed the sale deed and, therefore, in order to decide the main controversy,it will be just and proper to call for opinion of the handwriting expert after comparison of admitted signatures with the disputed signatures and, therefore, the trial court should have allowed the application of the petitioner for seeking second opinion of the handwriting expert. The learned counsel further invited my attention to the other grounds raised in the petition and submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the reasons recorded in the impugned order and submitted that the 3 impugned order does not call for interference under extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent and after perusal of impugned Order, I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed for following reasons. 5. The trial Court has recorded in paragraph 1 that on the request of the plaintiff, who is petitioner herein, the disputed thumb impression was sent to the expert opinion and the report was received to the Court vide Exh. 63 along with its enclosure. The Court has further observed that the expert opinion was received from the Director of Police of Finger Print Bureau C.I.D., Aurangabad , who is the only recognized competent person of Government. The Court has observed that as the opinion is not in favour of plaintiff, he is trying to create evidence by way of second opinion from specific person named Shri. Awade. 6. On query by this Court that, is there any provision for sending the thumb impression/signatures for second opinion, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not able to point out any such provision. The learned counsel only relied on Section 45 of the Evidence Act and submitted that taking recourse to said Section, second opinion can be sought. On careful reading of the provisions of Section 4 45 of the Evidence Act, I do not think that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. According to the prayer of the petitioner, once thumb impression was sent to the expert opinion and to that effect the report is received by the trial Court at Exh. 63. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein above, there is no substance in the Writ Petition and same is devoid of any merits. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of in view of disposal of main Writ Petition. [ S.S.SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP7369.08