Court dismisses petition seeking handwriting expert for ink age determination, citing inconclusive evidence.

The Court upheld the trial Court's decision to dismiss the applications for reopening evidence and examination of a promissory note by a Handwriting Expert. The petitioner's attempt to establish the ink's age was considered unlikely to yield useful results due to the short time gap and complexities involved in determining ink age. The Court emphasized that expert opinions on ink age are inconclusive and do not replace substantive evidence. As a result, the Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to be closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Reopening of evidence and examination of a promissory note by a Handwriting Expert.

Analysis:
The respondent filed a suit for money recovery based on a promissory note dated 08-12-2012. The petitioner contended that he signed a blank promissory note in 2010, which was later filled by the respondent in 2014 for the present suit. The petitioner sought to send the promissory note for examination by a Handwriting Expert to establish the age of the ink used. However, the trial Court dismissed the applications for reopening evidence and examination of the promissory note, leading to the revisions. The petitioner's sole purpose was to show that the ink was 5 years old, not 1 year old, when the suit was filed.

The petitioner's attempt to establish the ink's age was deemed far-fetched as the time gap was only 4 years. The Court noted discrepancies in dates on the promissory note and related documents. The petitioner did not request examination of the ink on the bounced cheque, dated 02-07-2014. The Court expressed doubts about a Handwriting Expert determining the ink's age with a 4-year gap, suggesting it may not be feasible for such a short period.

Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted that chemical tests to determine ink age are inconclusive and cautioned that expert opinions do not replace substantive evidence. The petitioner relied on Madras High Court judgments suggesting the possibility of determining ink age. However, extensive references from forensic science books indicated the imperfect nature of ink age examination. The Court emphasized that sending a document to a Handwriting Expert solely to determine ink age in such cases is unlikely to yield fruitful results.

The Court concluded that referring the document to a Handwriting Expert would serve no useful purpose due to the complexities and variables involved in determining ink age. Therefore, the dismissal of the applications by the trial Court was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also ordered to be closed as a result of the judgment.

---