TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by filing written statement by denying the said averments with the say that the defendant never had any such necessity to borrow such huge amounts on the alleged dates. It was in relation to the venture of his son at Bangalore, the plaintiffs son had some disputes and the plaintiff, his son and one Alum Srinivas Reddy colluded together and created and fabricated the documents referred and relied in the plaint of the present suit and in another suit filed against the defendant's son. The defendant is an agriculturalist and lives by its income and entitled to the benefit of Act No. 4/38 otherwise and there is no cause of action for the suit hence to dismiss. Leave about other contentions, the main contention of defendant is those are fabricated documents to say he never admitted execution of pro-notes and signed or received of amounts thereunder and also giving of cheque in question. 3. In the factual scenario I.A. No. 122 of 2018 filed by the defendant before the trial Court under Section 94(e), 151 CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed pro-note to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink in the signatures of the petitioner and the recitals in the pro-not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner/defendant of never borrowed any amount from plaintiff and plaintiff has no capacity to arrange such huge amounts and the so called documents inserted with words on the printed pro-note, the defendant given the pro-note as surety during the business of plaintiff and son of defendant who were doing real estate business at Bangalore. The trial Judge should have been thereby considered the request instead of dismissal more particularly from the written statement contest also for the fact plaintiff admitted in his cross examination as PW. 1 of the date of issuance of pro-note and filling of pro-note are not co-relating in seeking thereby to send to expert as necessitated. 6. The respondent even served and proof filed failed to attend. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taken as heard to revision respondent/plaintiff. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in T. Rajalingam @ Sambam v. State of Telangana 2017 Law suit (Hyd) 23 dated 19.01.2017 where it is in a cheque bouncing case from the defence of cheques given in the year 2007 and those were time barred and those were tampered by showing as if given in 2012 more ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k could be ascertained definitely by a chemical test and once even prior to 1964, chemical test were in application to find out age of ink. Now, the science in this branch has prospered to considerable dimensions and it cannot hereafter be contended that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink by scientific method. In A. Inayathulla supra while referring to Elumalai supra, referred further Yash Pal supra of Punjab High Court that was followed in another Single Judge expression of Madras High Court in S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran 2008 (1) Mad. LJ (Cri) 769, in saying age of the ink cannot be determined by the expert with scientific accuracy even does not mean not at all possible. 9. In A. Inayathulla supra, it also referred another expression of the Madras High Court in V. Makesan v. T. Dhanalakshmi 2010 (2) Mad LJ (Cri) 762, where in a cheque bouncing case regarding dispute on the age of the ink of no expert in that field to give opinion by adopting any scientific method and also referred other expressions of the Madras High Court in A. Sivagnana Pandian v. M. Ravichandran 2011 (2) Mad LJ (Cri) 595 at para-32 and A. Devaraj v. Rajammal 2011 (3) Mad LJ (Cri) 440, where th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ine age also, as a rule, are a mere excuse to make a guess and furnish No. reliable data 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 difference in ink, opinion of handwriting expert can be sought for under Section 45 of the Act and such opinion is not totally irrelevant for adjudication of the dispute from the opinion sought for determining the age of the disputed handwriting, it is crystal clear of the handwriting as to the year of writing can be given by expert opinion is the conclusion before the Supreme Court in its approving to consider way back in 1964 and referring to it way back in 1994 this Court held opinion as to age of writing or signature can be sought from the expert. It is no doubt in relation to a civil dispute." 12. From this coming to Kambala Nageswara Rao supra, what it is observed even facility available on facts no purpose served by referring to the expression of the Karnataka High Court in Ishwar v. Suresh 2010 Cr.L.J. 1510. 13. It is observed at Para 12 even therefrom once the Apex Court expression is very clear that an expert opinion as to determine the....