G V RAMIREDDY Vs. D MOHAN RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order, dated 13.08.2018, in I.A.No.874 of 2018 in O.S.No.253 of 2015, passed by the learned III Additional district Judge, Tirupati, dismissing the Petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 seeking to send Ex.Al promissory note to F.S.L. to ascertain the age of the signature and. the contents therein.

(2.) The defendant filed the said Petition on the contention that he did not execute Ex.Al pronote on 20.12.2012 as claimed by the plaintiff, and on the other hand on a different occasion, he borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and plaintiff obtained his signature on a blank promissory note on 27.09.2008 and also obtained a cheque for security purpose and though the defendant discharged the said debt in March, 2009, the plaintiff returned the cheque but did not return the promissory note and he pressed into service the said blank promissory note and created Ex.Al with the date 20.12.2012 and filed the instant suit. Thus, in essence, the defendant contends that Ex.Al was signed in the year 2008 but not in 2012 and for determination of the age of signature and contents in Ex.Al, the document be referred to F.S.L.

(3.) The trial court mainly relying upon the decision, cited by the plaintiff, reported in Polana Jawaharlal Nehru v. Maddirala Prabhakara Reddy, 2017 3 ALT 712 : 2017(3) ALD 579, dismissed the petition. In that case, Justice Y.Ramasubramanian, learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that no useful purpose would be served by referring the document to the handwriting expert as it was highly doubtful, that it was possible for a handwriting expert to fix the age of the ink, where the dispute with regard to the age was only 4 years; at least if the time gap was about 30 to 40 years, it might perhaps be possible for the handwriting expert to fix the age but when the time gap pleaded was just about 4 years, it would not be possible to fix the age. The trial Court judge, thus, dismissed the petition.