Determining the age of ink on a promissory note does not establish the contemporaneity of the signature and is irrelevant when the signature is admitted as genuine.

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Order dated 29.02.2024 dismissing I.A.No.32 of 2024 in O.S.No.1175 of 2019 on the file of the Court of V Additional Civil judge (Junior Division) at Kakinada filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 CPC to send the suit promissory note dated 02.11.2016 marked as Ex.A1 to a Government forensic lab to determine the age of the ink used in Ex.A1.

2. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.13,73,866/- (Principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/-) basing on Ex.A1. The petitioner filed a written statement denying borrowal of any amount at any time from the plaintiff and pleading, among other grounds, that the pronote was forged and fabricated and not executed nor was it signed by him and that the suit was filed to harass him and his family members in view of some dispute between his brother and the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that he is ready to send the pronote to expert examining finger print.

3. In that context, at the juncture of his cross examination, I.A.No.32 of 2024 was filed seeking the above stated relief of determining age of only ink used for writing in Ex.A1, while stating that he is ready to get determined the age of the ink of the writing and age of the paper used for Ex.A1.

4. The petition was opposed by filing the counter stating that the petitioner pleaded that he was ready to send Ex.A1 to expert examining finger prints, but the petition is for determination of age of ink used in Ex.A1 and thereby, as the petitioner admitted the signature on Ex.A1, there is no ground to grant the relief sought.

5. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition agreeing with the respondent and further observing that no specific reason had been stated why age of the ink is required to be determined and relevant and also that as the petitioner is denying the signature on Ex.A1, determination of age of ink would not be of any use since he had not stated the paper or the ink belong to a certain period and even if the age is determined, the date of manufacturing the ink and the date of execution of the document may not be the same, by placing reliance on the decision of this High Court in Kambala Nageswara Rao Vs. Kesana Bala Krishna, [CRP No.2168 of 2013, dated 08.11.2013] , wherein it was held – “Even while not disputing his signature on the promissory note, the petitioner wanted the age thereof to be determined. Several complications arise in this regard. The mere determination of the age, even if there exists any facility for that purpose; cannot by itself determine the age of the signature. In a given case, the ink, or for that matter, the pen, may have been manufactured several years ago, before it was used, to put a signature. If there was a gap of 10 years, between the date of manufacture of ink or pen and the date on which the signature was put or the document was written, the document cannot be said to have been executed or signed on the date of manufacture of ink or pen. It is only in certain forensic cases that such questions may become relevant.”

6. Aggrieved by the order, this Revision Petition was filed contending that it is the specific case of the petitioner that the signature on Ex.A1 and age of ink are disputed and after examination of the evidence on his behalf only, the petition seeking direction to send Ex.A1 to handwriting and finger print expert would arise; that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition even after (sic even before) coming to conclusion that the date of manufacturing of ink and the date of execution of document may not be the same even if age is determined; that the trial Court ought to have observed that t