Advocates:
['PRASHANT H KHOBRAGADE', 'S R GUPTA', '', 'S R GUPTA']

1 wp162.21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 162/2021

(Sanjay Raibhan Bhongade vrs. Nitin Rajkishor Gupta and ors)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders

appearances, Court'

s orders or directions

and Registrar'

s orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. P.H.Khobragade, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. S.R.Gupta, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 30/08/2021

Heard Mr. Khobragade, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petition challenges the order below Exh. 111 passed by the

learned Trial Court whereby the application for referring two receipts

at Exh. 67 to the Handwriting Expert has been rejected by the learned

trial Court. It is an admitted position that during the examination-in-

chief of the petitioner (Original plaintiff), these receipts were

exhibited collectively as Exh. 67, keeping open the aspect of their

evidenciary value at the time of the final argument. The evidence of

the plaintiff was closed. During the cross-examination of the

defendant, when the receipts were put to him, he denied his signature

thereupon, due to which the above application came to be filed.

Mr. Khobragade, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that an opportunity ought to have been granted by the

learned trial Court for the referral of signature of defendant upon the

receipt and the admitted signature on other documents, denial of

which is not justified in law according to him and therefore, vitiates

the impugned order.

This could have been done when the evidence of the

2 wp162.21.odt

plaintiff was yet to be closed, as the marking of the said receipts as

Exh.67 did not dispense with the proof of the same, which was evident

from the fact that the aspect of the evidenciary value had been kept

open. That apart, the witness to the said receipt namely one Ashish

Wankhede had also not been examined by the plaintiff, which

opportunity the plaintiff had before closing his side.

That being the case, the petitioner cannot now be

permitted to reopen the entire issue, when the opportunity which was

originally available to him, was not availed of. I therefore do not find

any infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition,

it is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Rvjalit