1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 597 OF 2010 Mozamkhan s/o Osmankhan Pathan & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Uttam s/o Kashinath Talne & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. U.P. Urgunde, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 2A to 2D. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Considering the application tendered by the respondents, two disputed documents, receipts alleged to have been executed on 13-4-2007 and 13-12-2007 were sent to the hand writing expert for comparison with the admitted signatures on the another document i.e. agreement to sell dt. 30-8-2006. It is stated that the documents are examined by the expert and report is also received. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was not a proper stage for referring the documents to handwriting expert and the court has erred in referring the documents to private expert. Another objection raised is that the disputed signature should have been 2 sent for comparison with the admitted handwriting of the person concerned. The person concerned could have been called before the court and after obtaining his signature before the court, those objected document alongwith disputed signatures could have been sent to the expert for comparison. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed document shall have to be examined by the Government expert and ought not to have been referred to a private expert. In view of the fact that the report is already received by the court, I deem it appropriate not to cause interference at this stage. However, the petitioner has liberty to raise all the objections before the trial court and the trial court shall consider the objections in accordance with provisions of law. Petitioner has also liberty to make appropriate application, for referring the documents to Government expert, at appropriate stage, if deemed appropriate. Considering the interlocutory nature of the proceeding, no interference is called for at this stage. Petition therefore stands rejected. 2 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp597.10.odt