Forensic examination of ink on a promissory note may be refused when it adds no real value to proving execution.

An application to send a promissory note for expert examination to determine the age of ink may be refused where it is unlikely to assist in resolving the dispute and would only create confusion. In a money suit based on a negotiable instrument, the court noted that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving execution of the promissory note, and the defendant is not required to seek forensic testing to disprove the claim. The request was also viewed unfavourably because the same relief had earlier been sought and withdrawn without liberty to renew it. The trial court's order permitting examination was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order permitting expert examination of the promissory note to ascertain the age of the ink was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The dispute arose in a money suit based on a promissory note. The defendant had earlier sought the same relief and later withdrew that request without obtaining liberty to renew it. The Court held that sending the document for determining the age of ink would serve no useful purpose and would only create confusion. It also noted that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving execution of the promissory note, and that the defendant was not required to take such a step to disprove the claim.

Conclusion: The order of the trial court allowing the application was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The civil revision petition succeeded and the impugned order permitting forensic examination was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: An application to determine the age of ink on a negotiable instrument may be refused where it is unlikely to assist in resolving the controversy, especially when the same relief had earlier been withdrawn without liberty to re-agitate it.

---