1 wp6658.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6658 OF 2010 Mr. Atul Chunilal Doshi ...Petitioner. Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Vaibhav J. Mehta with Ms. Deepti B. Mistry i/by M/s. Vaibhav Mehta & Associates for the Petitioner. Ms. Pallavi Kulkarni i/by M/s. Bilawala & Co. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 8th September, 2010 P.C.:- 1 By way of this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the DRAT Mumbai in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 99 of 2010. The Petitioner has preferred the said Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the DRT below exhibit 124 in OA No. 554 of 2001. The DRAT rejected the appeal of the Petitioner for resending the document to the handwriting experts. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeal against which this Petition is filed. 2 The DRT initially by its order dated 18th November, 2008 sent document at Exh. 61 for getting opinion of the handwriting expert. 2 wp6658.10.sxw ssm Initially, the Presiding Officer, DRT, compared the signature and found some variance and hence the said order was passed. However, the handwriting expert opined that it is not possible for him to give any definite opinion. The Petitioner, thereafter, again applied before the DRT for re-sending the document to another handwriting expert which was rejected. Against the said order, the appeal was filed. 3 It is true, as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner before the DRAT, that the DRT itself found that there is variance in the signature on comparing the documents. The learned Judge also expressed a doubt regarding the signature on the document. The handwriting expert is also not in a position to give any opinion one way or the other. It is for the DRT to consider whether any weightage is to be given to the documents in question, if the signature of the documents are found to be doubtful. It is for the tribunal to appreciate the documents at the time of deciding the application and come to a particular finding on the basis of such documents. If the Petitioner has any grievance ultimately on the final order passed by the DRT, and if the Petitioner is required to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioner can even raise this point before the DRAT, if any case is made out in that behalf. This court would not like to intercept the proceedings at an interlocutory stage and the petition therefore, is not required to be entertained against the interim order passed by the DRT, which is confirmed by the appellate tribunal. 3 wp6658.10.sxw ssm 4 Even otherwise, in our view, since the handwriting expert is not in a position to give any opinion, there is no sense in examining him before the tribunal. Whether any evidentiary value can be given to such documents, is a question which the tribunal is required to decide at the time of hearing the case. 5 Subject to what is stated above, the Petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)