1 918-WP-11705-21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.11705 OF 2021

SHRI. VITTHAL MANGA PATIL

VERSUS

SHRI. SUNIL DINKAR LANDGE

...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Dardhan Dinkarrao Pokharkar

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. M. S. Kulkarni

...

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 15^th JULY, 2022

PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

09/08/2021 passed by the learned 3^rd Joint Civil Judge Senior

Division, Dhule below Exhibit-61 and Exhibit-63 in Regular Civil Suit

No.142/2016, thereby rejecting the applications filed by the

petitioner for referring the documents to the handwriting expert.

2.

In the suit, petitioner/plaintiff sought a declaration that

sale deed of the suit property dated 24/11/1995 be declared null

and void and not binding on him. Relief of removal of encroachment

made by the defendant/respondent and possession of the

encroached portion is also claimed. During pendency of the suit,

petitioner by application Exhibit-15 sought direction to the

defendant to produce original sale deed dated 24/11/1995. The said

application was allowed by the trial Court. The defendant thereafter

2 918-WP-11705-21.odt

filed application stating that original sale deed is not available and

therefore, he is not in a position to produce the same.

3.

Petitioner thereafter filed application that impression of

both his thumbs be taken and the same be sent alongwith original

sale deed to the Government handwriting and fingerprint expert

and report be called, as to whether petitioner’s thumb impression is

there on the disputed sale deed. This application is rejected by the

trial Court holding that the question of getting handwriting expert’s

opinion on the original sale deed is kept open, as and when original

sale deed is placed on record, it can be done.

4.

The petitioner then filed application Exhibit-61 with a

prayer that register of original thumb impressions be called from

Registrar Office and the same may be forwarded to the handwriting

expert. By application Exhibit-63, petitioner prayed that impression

of both his thumbs be taken in front of the Court and the same

alongwith register wherein entry of sale deed dated 24/11/1995 is

taken, be forwarded to the handwriting and fingerprint expert of

Government Forensic Laboratory and he may be directed to give

report as to whether petitioner’s fingerprint is there on the original

register or not.

5.

The trial Court rejected both these applications on the

ground that if the register from Registrar Office which contain

3 918-WP-11705-21.odt

entries of other sale deeds and the thumb impression register/book

is called, the same since contain entries of other sale deeds and

thumb impressions of other executants, it would not be proper to

forward these registers to handwriting and fingerprint expert. The

same would also hamper work of Registrar Office.

6.

The trial Court is justified in holding that registers

cannot be forwarded, as it contain entries of other sale deeds also

and thumb impressions of other executants and the same would

hamper work of Registrar Office.

7.

However, taking into consideration the controversy in

the suit, this Court is of the view that if handwriting expert inspects

the register as well as thumb impression book, the same would help

the trial Court to factually adjudicate the dispute between the

parties and to arrive at a just decision. In that view of the matter,

the impugned order is liable to be modified. Applications Exhibit-61

and Exhibit-63 are allowed in the following terms :-

I)

Petitioner’s thumb impression of both the

thumbs be taken before the trial Court and the

same shall be forwarded to the handwriting and

fingerprint expert for comparing the same with

registration register as well as thumb

impression book in the Registrar Office, Dhule.

4 918-WP-11705-21.odt

(II)

Handwriting a