Back
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Sai Vineetha Junior College – Appellant
Versus
Killi Tavitayya S/o Lakshmana – Respondent
What is the Court’s position on whether a trial court can refer Exs.A-4 and A-5 for determination of the age of ink under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act? What are the considerations and limitations on using ink-age determination to decide the genuineness of documents in a civil suit for recovery of salary? What is the outcome of the Civil Revision Petition regarding the trial court’s order on referral of Exs.A-4 and A-5 for ink-age determination?
Key Points: - The court held that referring Exs.A-4 and A-5 for determination of the age of ink was not warranted and would amount to procrastination, affirming the trial court’s order dismissing the application (!) . - The court discussed prior jurisprudence (Shashi Kumar Banerjee, Kambala Nageswara Rao, G.V. Rami Reddy) on limitations of ink-age/dating to determine execution time and signature validity (!) . - The court noted that the witness (PW-2) corroborated the genuineness of Exs.A-4 and A-5, reducing likelihood that ink-age determination would resolve the dispute (!) . - The court emphasized that ink-age evidence does not determinatively establish the exact signing date and may not be reliable in isolation (!) . - The court concluded that the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and all pending miscellaneous applications are closed (!) . - The facts include a suit for recovery of salary arrears and a defense alleging ante-dating and forgery of appointment documents (!) . - The reasoning cites that the examination of documents alongside other corroborative evidence can be more decisive than technical ink-age tests (!) . - The decision references the constitutional scope of Article 227 and intervention standards for revisional jurisdiction (!) .
ORDER :
1. Defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 16.12.2021 in I.A. No. 220 of 2021 in O.S. No. 25 of 2016 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta.
2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 25 of 2016 against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 15,10,372/- towards arrears of salary.
3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that defendant appointed the plaintiff as junior lecturer in Civics on 07.06.2006; that plaintiff joined in service and continuing as junior lecturer; that plaintiff’s services, being junior lecturer, were also utilized as examiner by the Board of Intermediate Education and the plaintiff’s college used to issue relieving orders to attend the said work every year; that plaintiff was paid salary till December, 2011 as per the scales of government; defendant stopped paying salary from January, 2013 and promised to pay the salary later, due to financial contingencies; that arrears of salary from January, 2013 to December, 2013 comes to Rs.12,32,566/-; that plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 15.02.2016 and filed the suit for recovery of amount.
4. Defendant filed written statement and contended inter-alia that the plaintiff worked
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
