Dismissed

Sheshrao Balasaheb Ghogare and Another v. Balasaheb Ambadas Ghogare and Others

Bombay HC6 Jan 2023WP/12850/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of application to send specimen signature and thumb impression to State Examiner. Court refused interference, holding it is for the expert to determine authenticity requirements and that thumb impression changes are for the expert to decide.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no merit; application rejected in interest of avoiding erroneous expert opinion due to non-compliance of requirements.

Sheshrao Balasaheb Ghogare and Another Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

930 WRIT PETITION NO.12850 OF 2019

¶4

SHESHRAO BALASAHEB GHOGARE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS

¶5

BALASAHEB AMBADAS GHOGARE AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar
Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : Mr. S.S. Panale

¶7

 CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
 DATE : 06-01-2023

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

.The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated

¶10

06.02.2019 passed by the 7th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur

¶11

whereby the application for sending the specimen signature of the
respondent no.1 and the thumb impression of respondent no.2 to the
Government State Examiner has been rejected on the ground that the
documents during the relevant period containing the signatures and
the thumb impressions are unavailable for being sent to the State
Examiner.

¶12

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶14

Trial Court by its earlier order passed below Exh.87 had permitted the
specimen signature and the thumb impression to be sent for
examination to the State Examiner and the State Examiner cannot

¶15

¶16

now decline to submit his opinion on the ground that the original
document has not been sent and instead a photo copy has been sent.

¶17

4.The State Examiner by communication dated 13.06.2018
has opined that for submitting a report pertaining to the authenticity
of the signature the original document is required and the State
Examiner has also sought about 25 to 30 specimen signatures of the
concerned persons, which have been affixed on documents as well as
the signatures which might be affixed on documents during the
relevant period. As the petitioners were unable to comply with these
requirements, the application below Exh.99 came to be rejected.

¶18

5.I am not inclined to interfere with the order rejecting the

¶19

application for the reason that it is for the expert to determine the
requirements on the basis of which the expert will be able to submit
his report. Without the requirements explicitly set out in the
communication dated 13.06.2018 being complied, if the expert is
called upon to submit his opinion, there is every likelihood of an
erroneous opinion being submitted, which would, instead of assisting
the Court, result into further complication.

¶20

6.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶21

¶22

communication dated 13.06.2018 is only as regards the specimen
signatures and there is nothing which would prevent the State
Examiner to consider the thumb impression of the respondent no.2 as
it is his contention that the thumb impression does not change. This
Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India
is not in a position to decide as to whether the thumb impression of a
person changes over a period of time and it is only for the State
Examiner who is expert in his own field to determine the question.

¶23

7. Considering the above, there is no merit in the petition

¶24

and the same is dismissed.

¶25

( SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶26

GGP

Sheshrao Balasaheb Ghogare and Another v. Balasaheb Ambadas Ghogare and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheshrao Balasaheb Ghogare and Another v. Balasaheb Ambadas Ghogare and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansoor Kutubuddin Shaikh Vs Hassan Hussen Shaikh and Others

Rahul Ravindra Chaudhari Vs Pandit Pandurang Chaudhari and Others

Lahanu Mayanji Zine Vs Anjanabai Kisan Warule Since Deceased Thr Lrs Baban Kisan Warule and Others

Pandurang Digambar Amsule Vs Ramkrushna Yamaji Satpute and Another

Shaikh Vazeer Shaikh Jamal Vs Shaikh Aziz Shaikh Jamal Since Deceased Thr Lrs Shaikh Sandu Shaikh Aziz

Santosh Pandurang Hembade and Others Vs Namdev Sakharam Wankhede and Another