Allowed¶26

Smt. Aruna Panjabrao Sabane v. Santoshrao Madhavrao Thakare

Bombay HC20 Feb 2025WP/5789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Scope of Handwriting Expert's opinion; typed/scanned documents Exh. 68, 69, 68-C, 69-C; genuineness of non-handwritten contents for the trial court, not the expert; order below Exh. 90 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 62/2021 (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola) quashed; defamation suit evidence; liberty to approach Forensic Expert; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.; decided 23/04/2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17/08/2024 passed below Exh. 90 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 62/2021 quashed and set aside; respondent at liberty to pursue other remedies including examination of the document by a Forensic Expert; petition disposed of accordingly. ¶26

Smt. Aruna Panjabrao Sabane vs Santoshrao Madhavrao Thakare — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17/08/2024 passed below Exh. 90 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 62/2021 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, directing the Handwriting Expert to inspect the entire contents of documents Exh. 68 and 69, was sustainable in law. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The suggestion that the original contents of Exh. 68-C and 69-C might have been raised with other contents imprinted was not raised by the plaintiff in his application, and the Handwriting Expert is not the expert to opine on such aspect; it is a matter of evidence and analysis of the learned Court.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The contents of the documents in question are not handwritten; their genuineness is to be considered by the learned Court itself and not by the Handwriting Expert, and had the contents been handwritten the expert's opinion might have been relevant.

¶21

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 17/08/2024 passed below Exh. 90 is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.ratio¶23
The respondent is at liberty to avail any other remedy available in law, including an application to get the document examined from a Forensic Expert.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.), Writ Petition No. 5789 of 2024, decided 23/04/2025 — Challenge to order dated 17/08/2024 below Exh. 90 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 62/2021 (suit for defamation, mandatory and prohibitory injunction), whereby the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola permitted the Handwriting Expert to inspect the entire contents of documents Exh. 68 and 69, in addition to Exh. 68-C and 69-C already sent by order dated 11/03/2024 for opinion on whether signature and seal thereon are scanned or original — Held: the contents of the documents are typed, not handwritten; genuineness of typed contents is to be considered by the learned Court itself and not by the Handwriting Expert; the plea that original contents in Exh. 68-C and 69-C might have been raised with other contents imprinted was not raised in the plaintiff's application and is not within the Handwriting Expert's province, being a matter of evidence and analysis of the learned Court — impugned order unsustainable in law — petition allowed; order quashed and set aside; respondent at liberty to seek examination of the document by a Forensic Expert.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:4574

¶2

5-WP 5789-2024 (J).odt 1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5789 OF 2024

¶5

Smt. Aruna Panjabrao Sabane,

¶6

Aged about years, Occ: Business, R/o. A-506, Ganesh Gauri, Gumasta Layout, Kotwal Nagar, Nagpur, Tq. Dist. Nagpur …. PETITIONER

¶7

….VERSUS….

¶8

Dr. Santoshrao Madhavrao Thakare,

¶9

Aged about 57 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Ashirwad Heights, Ashirwad Nagar, Murtizapur, Tq.Murtizapur, Dist.Akola 444007 .... RESPONDENT

¶10

Shri Z.Z.Haq, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.S.Dhore, Advocate for respondent.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATE : 23/04/2025

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

¶14

The present petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 17/08/2024 passed below Exh. 90 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 62/2021 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola.

¶15

5-WP 5789-2024 (J).odt 2/4

¶16

It appears that, by order dated 11/03/2024, the documents Exh. 68-C and 69-C were sent to the Handwriting Expert for submitting opinion whether signature and seal thereon are scanned or original. The said application was filed by the plaintiff which came to be allowed. The plaintiff had filed another application below Exh. 90 for directing the Handwriting Expert to inspect the documents at Exh. 68 and 69 entirely, which are already sent for examination.

¶17

It is the contention of the plaintiff that, the suit is filed for defamation, mandatory and prohibitory injunction. The documents are placed by the witness of the defendant namely Rita Tushar Deshmukh. The plaintiff wanted to seek the report of the expert on the entire contents of document investigation and inspection of the documents by comparing the same with the original specimen documents filed on record. The said application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that, the Handwriting Expert cannot opine about its genuineness. Moreover, the contents of the application are typed one. Therefore, there is no necessity for sending the

¶18

5-WP 5789-2024 (J).odt 3/4

¶19

document to the Handwriting Expert.

¶20

The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola allowed the application on the ground that, it will assist to decide the matter finally. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the observation made by the learned Court in para 5 that, the documents filed alongwith list Exh. 92 being not disputed as a specimen documents of official correspondence, is incorrect. He has never admitted the said documents.

¶21

In my considered opinion, the documents in question have already sent to the Handwriting Expert for submitting his opinion whether signature and seal thereon are scanned or original. The contents are not handwritten, and its genuinity can be considered by the learned Court itself and not by the Handwriting Expert. If it would have been handwritten contents, such opinion of the Handwriting Expert may would have relevant. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that, the original contents in Exh. 68-C and 69-C might have been raised and some other

¶22

5-WP 5789-2024 (J).odt 4/4

¶23

contents are imprint on the same. However, such possibility is not raised by the plaintiff in his application. Moreover, the Handwriting Expert will not be the expert to opine on such aspect. It is a matter of evidence and analysis of the learned Court and not the authority of Handwriting Expert. As such, the impugned order passed on 17/08/2024 below Exh. 90 is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶24

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent makes a submission that, if there is any other remedy available in law, he may be permitted to avail it. The respondent is at liberty to take such remedy including the application to get the document examined from Forensic Expert.

¶25

As such, the petition is allowed .

¶26

The order dated 17/08/2024 passed below Exh. 90 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 62/2021 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶27

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of .

¶28

(Smt. M.S.Jawalkar, J.)

¶29

B.T.Khapekar

¶30

Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/05/2025 17:18:04

Smt. Aruna Panjabrao Sabane v. Santoshrao Madhavrao Thakare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aruna Panjabrao Sabane v. Santoshrao Madhavrao Thakare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ishwar S/O Shrirang Thakre Vs Tahsildar, Umred, Nagpur and Others

Zilla Parishad Washim Thr. Chief Executive Officer and Another vs Controlling Authority and Judge, Labour Court Akola and Another

Sumedh S/O Nilkanthrao Patil and Another Vs Suresh S/O Shyamraoji Umbarkar and Others

Gangadhar S/O Bhagwan Gedam vs Shri. Navnath Kisanji Gajbhiye

Mohd. Hanif S/O. Sheikh Ismail (Expired) and Another Vs Damayantibai Govindsingh Rajput and Another

Mohd Zameer Mohd Jabir Patel and Others Vs Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Taher and Others