ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3549 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3549 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3549 OF 2008 Sawaleram Kondaji Sarjine ...Petitioner Vs. Sai Prerana Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.P.M.Khamkar for the Petitioner. Mr.R.S.Ghatage i/by Mr.A.S.Desai for Respondent No.1 Mrs. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th July, 2008 : 11th July, 2008 : 11th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Mr.Khamkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr.Ghatage, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mrs.Bhende, the learned AGP, for Respondent No.2. 2. The Co-operative Court, Mumbai by an order dated 16/11/2007 rejected the Petitioner’s Application for sending the cheque in question to handwriting expert. This order was challenged before the Co-operative Appellate Court. However, the Co-operative Court’s order came to be confirmed. The Petitioner by filing the present Petition challenge these orders. ( 2 ) 3. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 Bank that the cheque was delivered to the son of Petitioner on the authority letter issued by the present Petitioner. The authority letter is annexed at page 26. Prima facie it shows that the Petitioner has given authority to his son. It is not the request of the Petitioner to send this authority letter to the handwriting expert. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere in the impugned order in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)