2008 (11) TMI 744

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.6,46,000/- with interest. Written statement has been filed by the respondent/defendant and the suit is being contested. Pending suit an application in I.A.No.656 of 2007 was filed by the respondent/defendant to send the disputed documents to Forensic Science Department at Chennai to ascertain the age of the ink found in the disputed promissory note. However, the said application was withdrawn as not pressed by the respondent/defendant on 11.01.2008. Thereafter, an application in I.A.No.79 of 2008 was filed by the very same respondent/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note to find out the age of the ink, through a Commissioner to be appointed in the above matter to hand over the original suit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent/defendant, and the same has been allowed. Therefore, he adds that the failure on part of the trial Court to take note of this fact, which was withdrawn as not pressed by the respondent/defendant vitiates the order and the order is hence bad. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit on merits that this Court in earlier judgment in S.Gopal Vs. D.Balachandran reported in 2009(1) CTC 491, has been observed that "the age of the ink cannot be determined, on the basis of the writing the ink in dispute was manufactured five years prior to the date of execution of the document and used effectively on a particular dated for the first time and an experts opinion as age of ink will not resolve any controversy, but it will h....