APHC010145642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: Chiluvuri Rajam Raju Datla Satyanarayana Raju Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VENKATA RAMA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO The Court made the following: 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 un the Evidence Act, 1872 promissory note dated 02.11.2016 m forensic lab to determine the age of the ink used in Ex.A1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 656/2024 ...PETITIONER AND Datla Satyanarayana Raju ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: P VENKATA RAMA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO The Court made the following: 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 , 1872 read with Section 151 CPC to send the suit dated 02.11.2016 marked as Ex.A1 to a Government ab to determine the age of the ink used in Ex.A1. [3311] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT 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 der Section 45 of read with Section 151 CPC to send the suit arked as Ex.A1 to a Government 2 CRP.No.656 of 2024 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 3 CRP.No.656 of 2024 reliance on the decision of this High Court in Kambala Nageswara Rao Vs. Kesana Bala Krishna1, 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 the petition was filed immediately after the evidence of the petitioner had been completed; that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by sending Ex.A1 to a handwriting and finger print expert as such opportunity to prove forgery is available only before the trial Court and a fair opportunity should have been given to prove the defence; and that 1 CRP No.2168 of 2013, dated 08.11.2013 4 CRP.No.656 of 2024 the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice for not giving reasons for dismissing the petition. 7. While reiterating the grounds of revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this High Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned in the revision and referred to a decision of this High Court. 8. In Pendyala Chakrarao Vs Somu Rayudu2, this High Court allowed the relief to send the disputed promissory note for determination of age of ink used in writing its body and the age of the ink used in the signature of the defendant thereon in view of the defence that the signature of the defendant was obtained on a printed blank promissory note in connection with a dispute of a broken marriage alliance of the son of the defendant. Therefore, the object is to establish that the signature and text in the body of the promissory note are not contemporaneous. In this case, the previous decision of this High Court in G.V.Rami Reddy vs. D.Mohan Raju3, was referred to state that there is an organization called Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai, which is a central government organization that undertakes the task of determining the age of ink/writing of a document and also to indicate a note of caution that mere determination of the age of ink is not sufficient to jump into a conclusion by excerpting the relevant part of the decision therein which reads as follows. “10. Therefore, in a given case, though the ink or a pen was manufactured in yester years, there is a possibility that a person may either deliberately or unknowingly use such ink/pen 2 CRP No.3380 of 2019, dated 22.01.2020 3 2019 (4) ALT 400 (AP) 5 CRP.No.656 of 2024 to make a writing or signature several years after its manufacture. In such an event, mere determination of the age of ink/writing by an expert will not clinch the issue as to when exactly the maker has written/signed the document. Therefore, the Courts must take note of this aspect while appreciating the rival contentions. This point is answered accordingly.” 9. In G.V.Rami Reddy (Supra), this High Court held that in view of the earlier decision in T.Rajalingam vs. State of Telangana and Others4, in which it was held that Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai provides facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made, the later decision of this High Court in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru vs. Maddirala Prabhakara Reddy5, is not a precedent to the proposition that no useful purpose would be served by getting age of the ink determined as it is highly doubtful where the dispute is 4 years period between the age of inks and that it may help if there is time gap of at least 30 to 40 years. 10. In Kolusu Murthy vs. Somireddy Ramachandra Rao and another6, this Court allowed the relief to get the age of the ink holding at paragraph No.15 as follows: “15. The purpose of examination of these documents to determine the age of the ink to prove that these documents were created just before filing of the suit, but not on the dates they bare. Therefore, it cannot be said that no purpose would be served by determining the age of the ink without determining the genuineness of the signatures on these documents (in view of 4 2017 (3) ALT (Crl.) 203 (AP) 5 2017 (3) ALD 579 6 2023(5) ALT 380 (AP) 6 CRP.No.656 of 2024 the plea of forgery of signatures as well). The proof of either forgery of signatures or the fact that the documents were not executed on the dates they bare would help the defendant in establishing his defence. Therefore, merely because, the defendant has not asked to determine the genuineness of the signatures on the disputed documents, the relief of determining the age of the ink used in the text of the body of these documents need not be refused. Therefore, it is clear misunderstanding that the petitioner sought the relief just on the ground that there was delay in supply of the documents. Since the trial Court disposed of the petition basing on an erroneous appreciation of the facts which are indicated in the foregoing discussion, the order needs to be set aside and the petition is to be allowed.” 11. In this case also the defendant pleaded that in a transaction of loan from the plaintiff’s brother (in 1997), the defendant handed over signed blank white papers, blank pronotes, stamp papers etc along with original documents of title and paid the principal amount, but the suit was filed in 2021 forging signatures of the defendants and fabricated the pronotes, the deed of memorandums, post cards etc. 12. In Sakala Bhaktula Vinod Kumar vs. Boina Govinda Raju7, this High Court allowed the relief of seeking age of ink and hand writing by pen signature and thumb impression of the defendant determined by expert since the defendant pleaded that during November, 2009 he had given the plaintiff a blank printed promissory note signing across the revenue stamp when he had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- as hand loan and 7 CRP No.3329 of 2019, dated 30.09.2022 7 CRP.No.656 of 2024 paid entire amount in the manner stated in the written statement, but the suit was filed in 2019 utilizing the earlier blank signed pronote by fabricating it. 13. The analysis of the above cases indicate that the defendants pleaded that they handed over signed blank pronotes and later suits were filed fabricating the pronotes. So the age of ink of signature and the age of ink of writing in the pronote would provide evidence in support of defence pleaded that they are not contemporaneous as contended by the plaintiff. Thus, there is purpose for seeking the relief. 14. In the present case, the defence is denial of total case of the plaintiff including signature, even then relief is not for examination of the signature to find out whether it is forged, but for determination of age of ink. In the light of the defence, no purpose would be served by determination of age of ink. Hence, irrespective of availability of the process of determination or accuracy of result, no reason is found to allow the petition. 15. When there is no merit to claim the relief, and no illegality in the order impugned in the revision, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order. 16. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. __________________ Dt.21.01.2025 B.S.BHANUMATHI, J PNV