wp4829.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4829/2011 Samir Bakimchand Das and another -vs- Komalkumar gopalrao Nimje and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Amol Mardikar, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 10.10.2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 10/08/2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for appointment of a second expert for examining the documents examined by another expert along with the other disputed documents. The petitioners are the original defendants. The respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed allegedly executed by them was a false and fabricated document. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. A counter claim filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. The petitioners filed an appeal against the dismissal of the counter claim and the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the dismissal of their suit. The first appellate Court, however, by the judgment dated 06/10/2009 set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for a fresh decision by giving an opportunity to the parties to prove the wp4829.11.odt 2/3 genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures through the handwriting expert. The plaintiffs had denied their signatures on the disputed document and the first appellate Court found that it was necessary to examine the signatures through a handwriting expert. The application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for permission to examine the documents by a handwriting expert was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 06/03/2010. The plaintiffs got their signatures verified from the handwriting expert and the handwriting expert submitted his opinion in favour of the plaintiffs. After this happened, it appears that after a period of almost one and half year, after the remand of the matter, the petitioners filed an application on 14/06/2011 for appointment of a second handwriting expert for examining the documents. However, by the impugned order dated 10/08/2011, the application was rejected. There is no error whatsoever in the order passed by the trial Court on 10/08/2011 rejecting the application for appointment of a second handwriting expert. The trial Court rightly observed that though the first appellate Court had remanded the matter on 06/10/2009, the petitioners did not take any pains to file the application for appointment of an expert till 14/06/2011. It appears that the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for appointing a handwriting expert was allowed on 06/10/2009 and after the handwriting expert expressed his opinion in favour of the plaintiffs, the petitioners, wp4829.11.odt 3/3 belatedly moved the application for appointment of a second handwriting expert on 14/06/2011. The trial Court observed that after the handwriting expert appointed in pursuance of the order dated 06/03/2010 furnished his report, the petitioners had also cross-examined the handwriting expert at length. The trial Court further found that the handwriting expert was appointed with the consent of both the parties and hence, the prayer made by the petitioners for appointment of a second handwriting expert was liable to be rejected. The trial Court found that there would be no end to the matter if such applications were belatedly entertained. The petitioners had previously moved an application for appointment of a handwriting expert and though one Shri Kotwal was appointed as an expert, the petitioners did not take any further steps to seek the opinion of the expert and place it on record. In this background, the order passed by the trial Court appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. There appears to be no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE