Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Sai Vineetha Junior College – Petitioner
Versus
Killi Tavitayya S/o Lakshmana – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 165 of 2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Indian Evidence Act – Section 45 – Defendant in suit filed above revision against order in I.A. in O.S. on file of VI Additional District Judge – Plaintiff filed suit O.S. against defendant for recovery towards arrears of salary – Held, However in facts and circumstances of that case, application was allowed and directed Ex.A-1 promissory note to refer for determination of age of signatures – In case on hand, as discussed supra, PW-1 not only filed Exs.A-4 and A-5, but also filed other relevant documents as attendance certificate etc – Person who issued Exs.A-4 and A-5 confirmed its genuineness – In these facts and circumstances, request to refer Exs.A-4 and A-5 to expert for determination of age of ink is only to procrastinate proceedings and no purpose will be served – Hence, in considered opinion of this Court, order of trial Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India – Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
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 as part-time lecturer for the academic years 2006 and 2007 and thereafter plaintiff left the college without intimation either to principal or to management; that plaintiff worked in various colleges and degree colleges at the relevant period claimed by the plaintiff; that appointment order dated 07.06.2006 alleged to have been issued by the correspondent is rank forgery; that the principal, who issued letter dated 07.06.2006 is not a principal at that time; that relieving order dated 26.03.2015 alleged to have issued by the principal is without the consent and knowledge of the defendant; that plaintiff is not an employee from the academic year 2008 and eventually prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
5. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A. No. 220 of 2021 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A-4 appointment letter dated 07.06.2006 issued by the principal, PW-2 and Ex.A-5 appointment order dated 07.06.2006 issued by the petitioner organization to the Neutron Activation Analysis Baba Atomic Research Center, BARC, Mumbai to determine the age of signatures and contents of Exs.A-4 and A-5 to know the genuineness of the documents.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter-alia that plaintiff basing on the documents such as appointment order dated 07.06.2006 filed the suit; that those documents are ante-dated just prior to filing of the suit; that signatures of correspondent is also forged by the plaintiff; that to ascertain the truth of above mentioned exhibits and their age, the documents are required to be sent to the expert to determine the age of ink.
7. Respondent filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter, it was contended inter-alia that while plaintiff was working as a junior lecturer, defendant deputed him to spot valuation as examiner from 2007 onwards; that relieving order by the defendant and appointment orders for the said purpose were marked as Exs.A-6 to A-12; that he also marked Exs.A-16 to A-21 issued by the defendant college to establish that he was conducting classes in the defendant college; that Exs.A-13 and A-14 are legal notice and acknowledgment; that at the request of defendant suit underwent several adjournments for cross examination of PW-2; that defendant did not enter into witness box to deny the signatures on Exs.A-4 and A-5 and to drag the proceedings this application is filed and prayed to dismiss the same.
8. By order dated 16.12.2021, trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.
9. Heard Sri Venkata Ramarao Kota, learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for respondent.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that determin
Promissory Note – Mere determination of age of ink/writing by an expert will not clinch the issue as to when exactly maker has written/signed document.
The determination of the age of ink used in disputed documents through forensic methods is currently unfeasible, and applications for such must be timely and relevant; otherwise, they may be dismisse....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that ink age tests are not reliable or of practical use in determining the date of writing, as evidenced by conflicting expert opinions and previou....
The absence of scientific methods to ascertain the age of ink invalidates applications to examine promissory notes for evidentiary purposes, emphasizing the need for substantive proof in legal procee....
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
