2021 (10) TMI 1365 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery of money due on a promissory note - defence of the defendant is that the defendant has neither borrowed any amount nor executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff - forgery of signature of defendant - HELD THAT - As of now, there is no mechanism or scientific method to findout the age of the writing or ink. But the learned Additional District Judge, without considering the non-availability of any such mechanism, by simply observing that the defendant has to be given an opportunity to prove his defence and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, allowed the petition. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is not good in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that this Court has already fixed the time limit for disposal of the suit and the same was not complied with, as the proceedings were subsequently stayed by this Court in the present revision, this Court is of the view that necessary directions are to be issued for the early disposal of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the promissory note.
2. Determination of the age of the ink on the promissory note.
3. Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for forensic examination.
4. Timely disposal of the suit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Promissory Note:

The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of money based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant. The defendant contested the suit, claiming that he neither borrowed money nor executed the promissory note. He alleged that the plaintiff, with the help of friends, fabricated the note and forged his signature and thumb impression. The defendant further argued that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to lend the claimed amount and suggested that the suit was orchestrated by the plaintiff's brother's wife, who had a separate legal dispute with the defendant.

2. Determination of the Age of the Ink on the Promissory Note:

The defendant filed a petition under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to send the promissory note to the Forensic Science Department to determine the age of the ink used for the signatures and writings. The plaintiff opposed this, citing multiple judicial precedents that held the age of ink could not be determined with scientific accuracy in India. The plaintiff referenced several decisions, including those from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and various judgments from the Madras High Court, which consistently ruled that no reliable scientific method exists in India to ascertain the age of ink.

3. Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for Forensic Examination:

Initially, the plaintiff had filed a petition for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take the promissory note to a handwriting expert for comparison. However, this petition was withdrawn after the defendant admitted to the signature on the note. Subsequently, the defendant's petition for forensic examination was allowed by the Additional District Judge, who reasoned that the defendant should be given an opportunity to prove his defense. The plaintiff challenged this order, arguing that the examination would be futile and only cause delays, given the non-availability of scientific methods to determine the age of the ink.

4. Timely Disposal of the Suit:

The High Court had previously directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within one year. However, proceedings were stayed due to the present revision petition. The plaintiff requested the court to issue directions for the early disposal of the suit, considering the stay had delayed the trial beyond the stipulated period.

Judgment:

The High Court set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge, which allowed the forensic examination of the promissory note. The court reiterated that there is no scientific method available in India to determine the age of ink, referencing multiple judicial precedents. The court found the impugned order legally unsustainable and emphasized that allowing such a petition would only cause unnecessary delays without serving any meaningful purpose.

The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of the order, ensuring expedited proceedings. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, with no costs awarded.