Evidentiary value of exhibited documents and forensic ink examination may be reconsidered after remand for fresh trial.

Mere exhibition of a cheque, return memo or bank letter does not by itself prove their contents, and prejudice cannot be inferred simply because original documents were taken on record. The document's evidentiary value remains subject to proof in accordance with law. In a suit remanded for fresh trial with liberty to adduce evidence, the court may take a pragmatic approach and permit scientific examination of a disputed document, including expert assessment of the approximate age of ink in signatures and writing, where that may assist the truth-finding process. The commentary notes that procedural discretion can be exercised afresh in the changed context created by remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether permission to produce and exhibit the cheque, return memo and bank letter caused prejudice to the defendant at the stage of trial; (ii) Whether the document should have been sent for forensic examination to ascertain the age of the ink used in the signature and writing.

Issue (i): Whether permission to produce and exhibit the cheque, return memo and bank letter caused prejudice to the defendant at the stage of trial.

Analysis: Mere exhibition of a document does not by itself prove its contents. The evidentiary value of the document and its contents would be considered only when proved in accordance with law. The defendant, therefore, could not claim prejudice merely because original documents were taken on record.

Conclusion: The refusal to interfere with the order permitting production and exhibition of the documents was justified and is not disturbed.

Issue (ii): Whether the document should have been sent for forensic examination to ascertain the age of the ink used in the signature and writing.

Analysis: In a suit directed to be tried afresh with liberty to lead fresh evidence, the trial court ought to adopt a pragmatic approach. Scientific examination of a document for determining the approximate age of ink is a permissible mode of expert assistance, and the object of the proceeding is to enable the truth to surface. The earlier rejection of a similar request did not bar reconsideration in the changed procedural context created by the remand.

Conclusion: The application for forensic examination ought to have been allowed and the impugned rejection was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part, with relief confined to directing scientific examination of the disputed document and continuation of the trial thereafter on the basis of the expert report.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suit has been remanded for fresh trial with liberty to adduce evidence, the court may permit scientific examination of a disputed document under its procedural discretion so that relevant expert opinion on ink age may aid adjudication.

---