TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing an expert opinion, as regards the age of the ink appearing in the signature of the petitioner and the age of the ink used for writing certain terms on a blank bond paper. 5. In so far as the first impugned order below Exh.189 is concerned, the Trial Court permitted the plaintiff to produce the cheque bearing No. 026316, the cheque returned memo and the letter of the bank. In so far as proving these documents by the party who produces it is concerned, the Trial Court has concluded that the evidenciary value of the document would be considered at the final stage and as these documents are in original form, they can be exhibited. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner /defendant would not get an opportunity to confront the said documents. 6. I find that the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced since mere exhibiting of a document, does not mean that the contents of the document are proved. The Trial Court cannot consider this document to the extent of its contents unless the said contents are proved. The Indian Evidence Act lays down the procedure for proving the contents of the said document. As such, I do not find that the petitioner would be prejudice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh evidence and having directed the Trial Court to decide the suit afresh. 10. The learned advocate for the plaintiff relies upon the decision of the Kerala High Court delivered in the matter of Chellappan Vs. State of Kerala, 1995 CRI.L.J. 150. It is submitted that, in view of the conclusion drawn by the said Court, once an issue was already decided earlier, the rule of estoppel would apply and the concerned party would not be permitted to reopen an issue. Reliance is placed on paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, which reads as under : 8. Where an issue has been decided by a competent court on a former occasion, such a finding constitutes an estoppel or res judicata against the parties to that proceedings. It will operate as a bar to reception of evidence to disturb that finding in a subsequent trial or proceedings. This principle is known as 'rule of estoppel'. The principle of 'issue estoppel' was stated by Xixon, J. in King V. Wilkes 77, CLR 511, as :­ "There is issue estoppel if it appears by record of itself or as explained by proper evidence that the same point was determined in favour of a prisoner in a previous trial which is brought in i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code a discretion is conferred on the Court to direct scientific examination of any document which in its opinion would be relevant for adjudicating the dispute in question. The Will dated 06/11/1991 is the document of contest between the parties. That document has been laminated and therefore, the defendants were justified in expressing an apprehension that removal of lamination cover could affect the document itself. It is, therefore, that a statement has been made on behalf of the respondent that the expert concerned without removing the lamination would examine the said document in presence of the parties or their representatives. The manner in which such examination would be done is stated in pursis dated 02.08.2017. 5. I find that by taking adequate precaution to ensure that the document in question as laminated is handled with care, its scientific examination can be permitted in the light of discretion exercised by the trial Court. The same can be done by following the modality as stated by the expert and mentioned in the pursis dated 02/08/2017. It is to be noted that after the document is examined, the opinion of the expert would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out the approximate range of the time, during which the writings would have been made and it is a Central Government Organization. It was concluded in A. Inayathulla supra therefrom of no purpose that could be served in sending the cheque in question to Government handwriting expert Tamilnadu. 11. In fact this Court relied upon the Apex Courts expression in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee observed as follows : Finally we may point out that the expert admitted in his evidence that it was only by a chemical test that it could be definitely stated whether a particular writing was of a particular year or period. He also admitted that he applied no. chemical tests in this case. So his opinion cannot on his own showing have that value which it might have had if he had applied a chemical test. Besides we may add that Osborn on "Questioned Documents" at p. 464 says even with respect to chemical tests that "the chemical tests to determine age also, as a rule, are a mere excuse to make a guess and furnish no. reliable date upon which a definite opinion can be based". It further observed that the time and place of execution of promissory note in dispute including as to....