IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant challenging the Order dated 26.11.2024 in I.A.No.700 of 2024 in O.S.No.1141 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. The respondent is the plaintiff. He filed O.S.No.1141 of 2019 for recovery of money based on the promissory note. The plaintiff’s case was that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.03.2018 for business purposes and family necessities and a promissory note in the presence of the scribe and attesters was executed in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest @24% per annum with compound interest either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff had been constantly approaching the defendant for repayment. Towards part payment of the principal and interest, the defendant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 20.03.2019 and as per the instructions of the defendant, the said cheque was presented for clearance on 18.05.2019, but the same was returned on 20.05.2019 with a memo for the reason of ‘funds insufficient’. The defendant did not repay and therefore the suit was filed for an amount of Rs.15,75,400/- with subsequent interest @24% per annum against the defendant.

4. The defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendant submitted that he never borrowed any amount and never executed any promissory note nor issued the cheque. The defendant had no necessity to borrow such a huge amount as he was having sufficient bank balance. There were some disputes which arose amongst the defendant, his father and brother and in connection therewith, they, in connivance with the plaintiff got fraudulently pressed into service the alleged promissory note and cheque which were never executed or issued by the defendant. There was no relationship of creditor and debtor between the plaintiff and the defendant and there was no legally enforceable debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant.

5. In the said suit, the defendant filed I.A.No.700 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 151 CPC to send the promissory note dated 20.03.2018 to the Work Manager Revenue Stamp Examiner, Nasik, Maharashtra for examination and find out the period in which the revenue stamp worth Rs.1/- affixed on the suit printed promissory note, and the age of the ink in the pen used for filling up the suit printed promissory note and subscription of the signatures on the revenue stamp affixed thereon, the attester and scribe and to submit a detail report.

6. The plaintiff/respondent filed objections/counter and denied the contents of the application and further submitted that the application was filed to protract the proceedings of the suit. The defendant had not taken the plea of forgery. Previously, the defendant had filed I.A.No.865 of 2022 for the same purpose, with the same relief on 28.09.2022 for sending the same promissory note Ex.A1 to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratories, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad. The said I.A.No.865 of 2022 was dismissed on 30.11.2022. The plaintiff prayed to reject I.A.No.700 of 2024, in view of the objections raised.

7. The learned trial Court vide Order dated 26.11.2024 rejected I.A.No.700 of 2024.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report from the Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory, or the endorsement by Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram or from BARC was no bar to file fresh application I.A.No.700 of 2024. He submitted further that the finding of the learned trial Court that there was no scope of scientific investigation was erroneous and unsustain