admitted that certain signatures are originals but they were not referred to Handwriting Expert for comparison and therefore, prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if they are not referred to Expert. Even though such a plea was taken, the petitioners have not established as to which of the signatures contained in the petition mentioned lists were admitted by PW.1 in his evidence as claimed by them. Without such clarification, the documents cannot be referred to. On the other hand, PW.1 in his crossexamination has categorically stated that out of the record summoned from the Registrar of Societies, except the lists dt.30.06.2005 & 23.12.2005 and the corresponding resolutions, the rest of the record is genuine. PW.1 ofcourse admitted the signatures on Ex.B.5—document dt.02.06.2005. Again when the contents of the said documents were shown, he denied the document. So from the evidence of PW.1, it cannot be stated that he admitted the signatures of any particular documents mentioned in I.A.No.408/2012. Therefore, the petitioners failed to establish the relevancy of the petition mentioned documents to refer them to the Expert. Added to it, as rightly observed by the Trial Court, the petitioners sought for comparison of the signatures of Mr. B.Janardhan, B.Damodar and M.Narayana Reddy, who had already resigned from their respective posts and have had nothing to do with the primary issue involved in the O.P. Further, the petition mentioned documents were all prior to the alleged new body lists dt.30.06.2005 and 23.12.2005 and therefore, petitioner failed to establish their relevancy in that context also.
