Order:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2022 passed in IA No.927 of 2022 in OS No.110 of

2021 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed OS No.110 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada against the petitioner herein for recovery of money due under a promissory note. Pending the said suit, the petitioner herein/defendant filed IA No.927 of 2022, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Order XXVI Rule 10A and Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to send the suit promissory note dated 09.09.2019, said to have been executed by the petitioner herein, to India Security Press, Nasik Road, Maharashtra, to know the year of manufacturing of the stamp affixed on the promissory note.

3. The petitioner herein in her affidavit filed in support of the petition stated that she never executed the alleged promissory note in the year 2019 and even in the cross-examination her counsel made a suggestion that the stamp affixed on the alleged promissory note is of the year 2021, but not of the year 2019. She further stated that she

2 CRP No.44 of 2023 2024:APHC:3791 had no personal acquaintance with the respondent herein in the year 2019 and that the stamp affixed on the alleged suit promissory note is not of the year 2019, therefore in order to ascertain the said fact it is essential to send the aforesaid document to the Government Printing Press, Nasik.

4. On the other hand, the respondent herein denied the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition on the ground that the said plea was not taken by the petitioner at earliest point of time and she comes up with the present petition at a belated stage.

5. Heard both sides.

6. On a perusal of the material on record goes to show that the suit is filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for recovery of amount based on the alleged suit promissory note. When the suit was coming up for defendant’s side evidence, the petitioner herein filed the present application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The main contention of the petitioner herein is that as the respondent herein is stranger to her in the year 2019, the question of execution of suit promissory note in that year does not arise and for proper adjudication of the matter and for arriving at a just decision with regard to age of the revenue stamp affixed on Ex.A1 promissory note, it is essential to send the said document to the Government of India Security Press, Nasik, Maharashtra.

3 CRP No.44 of 2023 2024:APHC:3791

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus.

“13. If a person wants to create or a back-dated agreement, the first hurdle he faces is the non- availability of stamp paper of such old date. Therefore tampering of the date of issue and seal affixed by the stamp vendor, as also the entries made by the stamp vendor, are quite common in a forged document. When the agreement is dated 5.1.1980, and the stamp papers used are purchased in the years 1973 and 1978, one of the possible inferences is that the plaintiff not being able to secure an anti-dated stamp paper for creating the agreement (bearing a date prior to the date of sale in favour of second defendant), made use of some old stamp papers that were available with him, to fabricate the document. The fact that very old stamp papers of different dates have been used, may certainly be a circumstance that can be used as a piece of evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of the agreement. But that cannot be a clinching evidence. There is also a possibility that a lay man unfamiliar with legal provisions relating to stamps, may bona fide think that he could use the old unused stamp papers lying with him for preparation of the document and accordingly use the old stamp papers.

1 2008 (4) SCC