ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a) To quash the impugned order dated

03.01.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, on IA No.25 and 26 in OS No.5/2014 vide Annexure-J, in the interest of justice and equity.

b) Pass such order or orders which this Hon’ble court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.5/2014 seeking for partition and separate possession. The petitioners, who were defendants No.2(a) to 2(e), have been brought on record on the death of their mother, who had initially been arrayed as defendant No.2, had claimed their right under a Will executed by one Sushilabai on 24.03.2008 and codicil dated

20.07.2009.

3. An application in I.A.No.25 having been filed by plaintiff for summoning the expert who had examined the said Will and submitted a report relating to the said Will in C.C.No.24/2016, came to be allowed by the Court. The petitioners had also filed another I.A. in I.A.No.26 to refer the relinquishment deed relied upon by the petitioners for forensic examination, which came to be rejected by a common order. Challenging both the orders, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Submission of Sri. Girish Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioners is that, an expert report had been furnished in C.C.No.24/2016 by a private Forensic Science Laboratory and as such, the expert not being a Governmental Expert, the said expert testimony could not be relied upon and furthermore, when the petitioners themselves are not relying on the said report, the question of summoning the expert as a witness would not arise.

5. He submits that, the relinquishment deed which has been produced by the petitioners would also have to be referred to examination by the forensic expert to ascertain that the respondents herein had signed the said document.

6. Sri. Laxman Mantagani, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 4 submits that the relinquishment deed which has been produced is a photocopy and the original not having been produced, the trial Court has rightly rejected the said application. Insofar as the expert evidence is concerned, the said expert’s report being contrary to the claim of the petitioners, there is no question of the petitioners relying on the same, it is the respondents who are relying on the said report and therefore seeking for summoning the said witness, since he is not a private witness. The report having been filed in C.C.No.24/2016, the said expert witness is required to be summoned to give his evidence in the matter, who could be cross-examined by the petitioners.

7. Sri. Chetan T. Limbikai, learned counsel for respondent No.1 adopts the submission of Sri.Laxman T. Mantagani.

8. Heard Sri. Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 4 and Sri. Chetan T. Limbikai, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

Perused the records.

9. Insofar as relinquishment deed is concerned, it will not hold this Court much longer, since it is only the photocopy which is produced. Since the photocopy has been produced, the same cannot be referred to forensic examination by an handwriting expert. In the event of the petitioners producing the original of the relinquishment deed, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek for such reference.

10. As regards the Will, the claim of the petitioners being based on the Will, the defence raised by the respondents is that, the Will was not so executed by Sushilabai and a report of handwriting expert has been furnished. The expert in the present matter is a Scientific Officer of Truth Labs. The said Truth Labs has been recognized by this Court to be a Forensic Lab of repute and this Court as also the trial Courts have been referring the matters to the Truth Labs for the purpose of ascertaining the veracity of the documents, as also for DN