U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

1. The challenge in this civil revision petition is the order, dated 13.8.2018, in IA No. 874 of 2018 in OS No. 253 of 2015, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking to send Ex. A1 promissory note to F.S.L. to ascertain the age of the signature and the contents therein.

2. The defendant filed the said petition on the contention that he did not execute Ex. A1 pronote on 20.12.2012 as claimed by the plaintiff, and on the other hand on a different occasion, he borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and plaintiff obtained his signature on a blank promissory note on 27.9.2008 and also obtained a cheque for security purpose and though the defendant discharged the said debt in March, 2009, the plaintiff returned the cheque but did not return the promissory note and he pressed into service the said blank promissory note and created Ex. A1 with the date 20.12.2012 and filed the instant Suit. Thus, in essence, the defendant contends that Ex. A1 was signed in the year 2008 but not in 2012 and for determination of the age of signature and contents in Ex. A1, the document be referred to F.S.L.

3. The trial Court mainly relying upon the decision, cited by the plaintiff, reported in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru v. Maddirala Prabhakara Reddy, 2017 (3) ALD 579, dismissed the petition. In that case, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that no useful purpose would be served by referring the document to the handwriting expert as it was highly doubtful; that it was possible for a handwriting expert to fix the age of the ink, where the dispute with regard to the age was only 4 years; atleast if the time gap was about 30 to 40 years, it might perhaps be possible for the handwriting expert to fix the age but when the time gap pleaded was just about 4 years, it would not be possible to fix the age. The trial Court Judge, thus, dismissed the petition.

4. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, ksarned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent.

5. Now the points that arise for determination in this civil revision petition are:

1. Whether Forensic Expertise to determine the age of ink/pen is available in our country to refer the alleged document?

2. If Point No. 1 is held affirmatively, whether such determination of age of ink/handwriting is suffice to upheld the contention of the petitioner/defendant, in the instant case?

Point No. 1

6. It is to be noted that in the decision reported in R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy, 2010 (1) CTC 424, a learned Judge of Madras High Court ascertained from Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai, that there is one institution known as Nutron Activation Analysis, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai, where there is a facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings, would have been made and it is a Central Government Organization. Basing on the observation made by the learned Judge in Jagadeesan's case (supra), Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao, learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, in his decisions reported in T. Rajalingam v. State of Telangana and others, 2017 (3) ALT (Crl.) 203 (AP) and Namineni Audi Seshaiah v. Numburu Mohan Rao, 2018 (6) ALD 751, ordered that the documents therein be sent to the aforesaid organization for determination of age of the ink.

7. Thus, from the above, it is clear that there is an organization called Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, which is a Central Government Organization which undertakes the task of determining the age of ink/writing of a document.

8. It should be noted that the decision in Rajalingam's case (supra), which is an earlier decision, w