https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305718 Scientific examination of a promissory note to determine whether signatures and contents were written on different dates was treated as impractical where no qualified expert was available to conduct that examination. The revision challenge to refusal of the request therefore failed, as expert referral would be futile without the relevant scientific capability. Precedents were cited to support the view that documents should not be sent for analysis when experts cannot determine the requested writing-date details. The lower court's refusal to order examination was consequently upheld and the civil revision petition was dismissed. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Dec 2022 08:45:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305718 Scientific examination of a promissory note to determine whether signatures and contents were written on different dates was treated as impractical where no qualified expert was available to conduct that examination. The revision challenge to refusal of the request therefore failed, as expert referral would be futile without the relevant scientific capability. Precedents were cited to support the view that documents should not be sent for analysis when experts cannot determine the requested writing-date details. The lower court's refusal to order examination was consequently upheld and the civil revision petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305718