( 1 ) wp949.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 949 OF 2011 Maruti s/o. Sambhajirao Lavhare .. Petitioner Versus Eknath s/o. Sambhaji Lavhare & Ors. .. Respondents Shri S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.R. Kedar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 29.03.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri Jadhavar for the petitioner and Adv. Shri Kedar for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application for forwarding documents to handwriting expert has been rejected by the Trial Court after noticing that the original document is not on record and admissibility of that document in evidence is in question. It is further found that there is some evidence in relation to that document by a witness. The effect of that evidence can be looked into after final arguments and at ( 2 ) wp949.11 the time of judgment. Apart from this it is found that the application has been moved belatedly. 2. During arguments it has been pointed out to this Court that the document in dispute, namely, partition deed, is exhibited after leave to lead secondary evidence came to be granted. The Trial Court in the impugned order also observed that though it is rejecting application at that stage, the rejection cannot affect its power in the matter. It is therefore apparent that the Trial Court has kept option of considering the request of the petitioner open, if it finds any need therefor. I do not see any error or perversity in the impugned order. The petition is not entertained and disposed of accordingly. [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] snk/2011/MAR11/wp949.11