Bombay High Court
Arihant Uamkant Khobragade And ... vs Parvindersingh Harmendrasingh ... on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/4 Judg.62.wp.918.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 918 OF 2022
1. Arihant Umakant Khobragade
Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
student; Resident at - Darga Ward, Binba
Road, Chandrapur.
2. Ku. Shilpa Umakant Khobragade
Aged about 19 Years, Occupation-Student
Resident at - Darga Ward, Binba Road,
Chandrapur. ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Parvindersingh Harmendrasingh Bhatia
Aged about 55 years, Ocupation-Business
Resident at - Kotwali Ward, Chandrapur;
Tahsil and District Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENT
Mr. Deoul Pathak, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for Respondent.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : JUNE 13, 2022.
Yadav VG
2/4 Judg.62.wp.918.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for rival parties.
2. By this Petition, Petitioners i.e. original Defendant Nos.2
and 3 have challenged the order dated 22/10/2021 passed by the
learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur below the
application (Exh.67), whereby the application (Exh.67) filed by the
Petitioners has been rejected. By the said application (Exh.67) the
Petitioners sought direction for appointment of handwriting expert for
comparing the signatures of the deceased original Defendant No.1 -
Smt. Revati Umakant Khobragade on the Agreement (Exh.34) in
question and other documents which are already on record in the form
of Vakilpatra, Registered Address and written statement.
3. The learned court below has rejected the said application
recording the fact that the deceased original Defendant No.1 had
indeed denied her signature on the Agreement (Exh.34) in question,
but it was held that since there was every possibility of the original
Defendant No.1 having appended signatures on the other documents
i.e. Vakilpatra, written statement, registered address etc. filed in the
court, that were different from the signature on the Agreement
(Exh.34) in question, the prayer of the Petitioners was rejected.
Yadav VG
3/4 Judg.62.wp.918.2022
4. The learned Counsel for Petitioners submitted that the court
below was not justified in rejecting the application (Exh.67), while the
learned Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff submitted that no
interference is warranted in this Petition.
5. After considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the
opinion that reasoning of the court below in the impugned order
cannot be said to be unsustainable, for the reason that, the
apprehension expressed by the court below appears to be relevant in
context of the facts of the present case. Nonetheless, it cannot be
ignored that the deceased original Defendant No.1 indeed denied her
signature on the Agreement (Exh.34) in question in the written
statement on record of the court below. In such a situation, the
Petitioners can be granted appropriate opportunity to move the court
below to send relevant documents to the handwriting expert, if a case
in that regard is indeed made out. It would be relevant that such an
examination/comparison of signatures would be more relevant in
context of documents, if any, which are anterior in point of time to the
Agreement (Exh.34) or prior to the filing of the suit.
6. In view of above, Writ Petition is disposed of without
interfering with the impugned order.
Yadav VG
4/4 Judg.62.wp.918.2022
7. All rights of the Petitioners are kept open to move an
appropriate application for appointing expert to compare signatures in
the context of documents bearing signatures of the deceased original
Defendant No.1, which came into existence prior in point of time to the
Agreement (Exh.34) or filing of the suit by the Respondent.
8. Needless to say, the order impugned herein shall not
prejudice such an application, that may be filed in future by the
Petitioners.
(MANISH PITALE, J.)
Digitally Signed ByVIJAYA
GOURISHANKAR YADAV
Signing Date:15.06.2022
12:07
Yadav VG
