Expert examination of disputed promissory notes allowed where ink age may help rebut a fabrication claim.

Expert opinion on the age of writings and ink in disputed promissory notes is relevant under the Evidence Act, and the mere passage of time does not by itself justify refusing examination. Where the defence alleges fabrication, the court should not deny the opportunity to obtain expert analysis merely because its evidentiary value may be assessed later, especially when the request is meant to rebut the claim. The availability of facilities for such examination also matters. The defendant was therefore entitled to have the documents sent for expert examination, and the trial court's refusal was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant was entitled to have the disputed promissory notes sent for expert examination to determine the age of the ink used in the writings and signatures.

Analysis: The request was made under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act on the premise that the promissory notes were fabricated. The Court noted that expert opinion on the age of writings and ink is relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the mere passage of time does not by itself justify refusal of such examination. The Court held that non-availability of a conclusive view on evidentiary value at this stage is not a ground to deny the opportunity, particularly when the request is aimed at enabling the defence to rebut the claim. The Court further found that the existence of facilities and expert assistance for such examination could not be ignored.

Conclusion: The defendant was entitled to have the disputed documents sent for examination to determine the age of the ink, and the refusal by the trial Court was unsustainable.

---