S. Sakthivel vs Ganesan & Palanisamy

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The Petitioner is the Defendant in O.S. No. 99 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode. The Respondent has filed the said Suit for recovery of money based on a Promissory Note. The Plaintiff disputes the said execution of the Promissory Note itself. During the pendency of the Suit, the Petitioner filed I.A. No. 356 of 2012 before the learned Subordinate Judge requesting the Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for taking the alleged Suit Pro-Note dated 10.5.2009 for getting expert opinion in respect of age of the ink in the Petitioner''s signature found in the alleged Suit Pro-Note dated 10.5.2009 from the experts in Forensic Department (The Director of Forensic Department, Signature Division), Chennai. The learned Subordinate Judge, by order dated 29.6.2012, dismissed the said Application. Challenging the same, the Petitioner is before this Court with this Civil Revision Petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully.

A perusal of the order of the Trial Court would go to show that the Trial Court has relied on a judgment of this Court in R. Jagadeesan v. Ayyasamy, 2010 (1) CTC 424, wherein, this Court took a view that there is no expert available in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to get expert opinion about the ink of the document.

The said judgment of the Court in R. Jagadeesan v. Ayyasamy, 2010 (1) CTC 424, was confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition filed against the same was dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Subsequently, the very same question came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in A. Sivagnana Pandian v. M. Ravichandran, 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 173, wherein also the said judgment in R. Jagadeesan case was cited. But, the learned Judge took a different view and held that the document could be sent for examination by an expert. However, before the learned Judge, the fact that the Special Leave Petition which was filed against R. Jagadeesan case was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court was not brought to the notice.

Thereafter, the same question came up for consideration before the yet another learned judge of this Court in K. Vairavan v. Selvaraj, 2012 (5) CTC 596, wherein, the learned Judge has re-affirmed the earlier view taken by this Court in R. Jagadeesan v. Ayyasamy, 2010 (1) CTC 424, that there is no scope for sending any document seeking Expert opinion regarding the age of the ink of any document because, there is no Expert available in India in terms of Section 45 of the India Evidence Act to offer such opinion. In view of all the above, the Civil Revision Petition deserves only to be dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would however submit that the Revenue stamp used for the execution of the disputed Promissory Note itself came into being long after on the date on which the Promissory Note was allegedly executed. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that the Petitioner may be given liberty to file a Petition before the Trial Court to send the disputed document to Nasik Press to get opinion regarding the same. Regarding this request, this Court does not like to express any opinion as it is for the Trial Court to decide the same.

In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode in I.A. No. 356 of 2012 in O.S. No. 99 of 2010 dated 29.6.2012 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.