1 wp 8843.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8843 OF 2011 Ramvilas S/o Nandlal Randad, Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Aapegaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner Versus Giridharilal S/o Jagannath Randad, Age : 73 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Aapegaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. .. Respondent Shri H. P. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent has has filed suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. During the pendency of suit 2 wp 8843.11 present petitioner filed an application for referring the document styled as partition deed to the hand writing expert. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. The learned counsel submits that the reasons for which the said application is rejected are erroneous and untenable. When the expert witness is available, then it is always desirable to invoke Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and refer the document to hand writing expert. The learned counsel contends that the present respondent has denied his signature on said partition deed. After the evidence was recorded of the respondent, the said application has been filed. There is no delay. 3. Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submits that U/Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court can compare the signature. The Court has rightly observed the same. It is not necessary to refer the said document to hand writing expert. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order. The present respondent in his deposition has categorically denied about having executed the said document. 3 wp 8843.11 The Court has said that U/Sec. 73 it can compare the signature of the respondent with the admitted signature. No doubt, Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act invests the Court with the jurisdiction to compare the signature i. e. disputed signature with the admitted signature. However, it cannot be lost sight that U/Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court has power to refer the document to hand writing expert. When the expert's evidence would be available then in such cases, it would be always proper to call for the same and that would also assist the Court in coming to the just conclusion. The report of the expert is not conclusive evidence. But at the same time it would assist the Court in arriving at just conclusion. 5. It would be unsafe to rely solely on the expertise of Court in comparing the signatures. In view of above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner Exhibit 64 i. e. the alleged partition deed be referred to the hand writing expert. The petitioner shall bear the charges for the same. The Trial Court shall direct the concerned approved hand writing expert to send the report as expeditiously as possible. 4 wp 8843.11 Rule is accordingly made absolute, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11