Expert evidence on ink age remains relevant when document execution and authenticity are disputed

Expert opinion on the age of ink in a promissory note is relevant where execution, attestation, authenticity, or place of execution are disputed. Opinion evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is admissible, though handwriting and document examination are not exact sciences and must be weighed cautiously. Uncertainty in determining ink age does not make such evidence irrelevant at the threshold; its probative value remains for the trial court. On that basis, sending the document for expert examination was held justified and the revision petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit promissory note could be sent to an expert for opinion on the age of the ink used in the document, and whether such expert evidence was relevant to the issues of execution, attestation, and territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Opinion evidence of an expert is relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The science of handwriting and document examination is not exact, and expert opinion must therefore be assessed cautiously. However, the evidentiary weight of such opinion, and whether it ultimately supports or discredits the parties' case, are matters for the trial court. The mere fact that determining ink age may involve uncertainty does not make expert evidence inadmissible or irrelevant at the threshold, especially where the authenticity and place of execution of the document are in dispute.

Conclusion: The application to send the document for expert examination was justified and was rightly allowed. The revision petitions failed and were dismissed.

---