The determination of ink age alone is not sufficient to establish the date of writing or signing.

Headnote:
Evidence Act - Section 45 - The defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note for forensic examination to ascertain the age of the document and revenue stamps. The court considered the provisions of Section 45 and previous judgments to determine the admissibility of the application. The court found that the determination of ink age alone is not sufficient to establish the date of writing or signing. The court dismissed the application based on this interpretation of the statute.
Fact of the Case:
Defendant filed a revision petition against the dismissal of their application to send the suit promissory note for forensic examination. Defendant claimed that the note was a blank signed document and that the ink and age of the document should be ascertained. Plaintiff opposed the application. The trial court dismissed the application without considering the defense. The defendant relied on previous judgments to support their case. The suit was filed for recovery of amount on the strength of the promissory note. The defendant claimed that the note was fabricated by the plaintiff due to marital disputes. The defendant raised the issue of the age of the document for the first time in the application. The court found that the ink age determination is not a reliable method and dismissed the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered previous judgments and observed that the determination of ink age alone cannot establish the exact date of writing or signing. The court also noted that the defense did not mention the age of the document in the written statement. The court found that the trial court's dismissal of the application was not illegal or perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of ink age alone is not sufficient to establish the date of writing or signing. The defense must provide evidence of suspicious circumstances or other factors to support their claim.
Result: The revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.

ORDER :

1. Defendant in suit filed the above revision petition against the order dated 01.10.2022 in I.A. No. 1132 of 2022 in O.S. No. 712 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 712 of 2019 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note.

3. Defendant by filing written statement is contesting the suit. In the written statement, defendant contended as under:

“9. This defendant humbly submits that, the plaintiff is an utter stranger to this defendant with regard to the transactions as alleged by him and in fact this defendant never executed any promissory note in favour of anybody much less the plaintiff in the above suit. Moreover, this defendant has neither need nor necessity to borrow such a huge amount from anybody.

10. This defendant further submits that, he is having marital disputes with his wife and the wife of this defendant is having illegal affairs with the plaintiff in the above suit. It seems that the wife of this defendant might have planted the plaintiff in the above suit to harass this defendant endlessly and the alleged promissory note was at the residence of this defendant and due to marital disputes between this defendant and his wife, she ought to have given the signed blank promissory note to the plaintiff, and this plaintiff fabricated the same and filed the above suit in order to get wrongful gain from this defendant.”

4. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A. No. 1132 of 2022 under Section 45 of Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note dated 16.05.2016 to any Forensic expert for opinion to ascertain the age of the contents of the filled document with that of signatures of the defendant and also the age of the document and revenue stamps and pass such other and further orders as the Court deems fit and proper.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter-alia that the suit promissory note dated 16.05.2016 was a blank signed pronote; that promissory note is very old document which is about more than three years before the alleged suit document date i.e. 16.05.2016; that plaintiff filled the said document according to his convenience as such the age of the ink through which the entire alleged prommisory note has been filled with that of the age of his signatures and age of the document and revenue stamps should be ascertained.

6. Plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application.

7. Trial Court by order dated 01.10.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, defendant filed the present revision petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in view of the defence taken in the written statement, the application is filed to send the document for expert to ascertain the age of the document and revenue stamps and also to ascertain the contents of the filled documents with the signature. He would also submit that the trial Court dismissed the application without considering the same and placed reliance upon the orders of this Court without considering the judgments in G.V. Rami Reddy vs. D. Mohan Raju, AIR 2019 A.P. 83, Namineni Audi Seshaiah vs. Mumburu Mohan Rao, 2018 (6) ALT 285 (SB), Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since deceased and after him his legal Representatives and Others, AIR 1964 SC 529.

10. Suit O.S. No. 712 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. The specific defence of the defendant is that due to marital disputes between himself and his wife, wife of the defendant gave singed blank promissory note to the plaintiff and plaintiff fabricated the same and filed the suit.

11. Nothing was mentioned in the written statement about the fact that promissory note is very old document. But, for the first time by filing I.A. No. 1132 of 2022, defendant raised this plea. Even in G.V. Ramireddy vs. D. Mohan Raju, 2019 (2)