The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a government expert has already stated that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink, and the party seeking expert opinion can adduce other evidence to prove their contention, there may be no grounds to interfere with the trial court's decision.

Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act - Suit Promissory Note - Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the opinions of experts, and the relevance of expert opinions in determining the age of ink in a promissory note. The court also referred to a previous judgment regarding the evidentiary value of handwriting expert and relevant provisions dealing with opinion evidence.
Fact of the Case:

The defendant filed a petition under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note to a private expert for comparison of the age of ink. The trial court dismissed the petition, stating that the government expert had already returned the document, stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court's decision to dismiss the petition was justified, as the government expert had already stated that it was not possible to ascertain the age of the ink. The court also noted that the defendant could adduce other evidence to prove his contention.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's decision to dismiss the petition under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was sustainable and warranted any interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the government expert had already stated that it was not possible to ascertain the age of the ink, and the defendant could adduce other evidence to prove his contention, there were no grounds to interfere with the trial court's decision.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision petition was dismissed, and the Senior Civil Judge was directed to dispose of the money suit expeditiously within six months.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 1st petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala in I.A.No.134 of 2014 in O.S.No.74 of 2009 dtd. 12/8/2014 where in and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner No.1 under Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act and refused to send suit promissory note to Hand writing expert Mr.Ashok Kashyap for comparison of age of ink.

2. The case of petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in brief is that respondent has filed suit against him basing on promissory note. He submits that respondent has examined PWs 1 and 2 and his evidence was closed and thereafter suit was coming for his side evidence. As he pleaded in his written statement that PW2 was running Finance Company at Chirala and one Katta Suri Babu, who is working as IV-Class employee in V.S.R and Y.R.N.College approached Finance Company for a loan to meet publication expenses of the book, for which PW2 insisted the said Suri Babu to get third party surety and thereafter at the request of said Suri Babu he stood as surety and PW2 advanced Rs.40, 000.00 to Suri Babu, which transaction took place in the year 1995, at that time PW2 obtained two blank promissory notes, one from Mr.K.Suri Babu and another from him and that PW2 might have created forged recitals of the promissory note taking advantage of availability of blank promissory notes signed by him.

3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he filed I.A.No.633 of 2013 to send the suit promissory note to A.P.Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad to ascertain the age of ink in signature and remaining portion of the promissory note which petition was allowed and thereafter the suit promissory note was sent to A.P.Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion but the same was returned without expressing any opinion stating that they are unable to give an opinion. Hence, petitioner filed petition to send promissory note to Private Expert at Delhi.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed detailed counter before the Trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that petitioner has filed petition only to drag on the matter. He submits that hand writing expert is not competent to decide the age of ink and age of signature and there is no science to find the age of ink or signature in the document. He prays to dismiss the petition.

5. After hearing both sides learned Trial Judge, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by observing that first petitioner without adducing any evidence filing one petition or other only to drag on the matter and Government Expert already returned the document stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink.

6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Trial Court, the present Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the orders passed by the Trial Court are irregular and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested on it. He prays to allow the petition.

7. I have heard both sides.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though suit promissory note ordered to be sent to Government Expert which was returned as there is no possibility of comparing age of the ink due to that, first petitioner filed another petition to send the same to Private Expert to ascertain the age of ink which is possible when it is sent to Private Expert. He would further submit that as per the defence of the first petitioner in this suit, comparing the age of the ink in the promissory note is necessary to arrive just conclusion in the suit.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that Trial Court after considering the request of the petitioner sent the suit promissory note to A.P.Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion with regard to the age of the ink, but the same was returned stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age

Click Here to Read the rest of this document