2008 (11) TMI 744 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the filing of a Civil Revision Petition to set aside an order passed in I.A.No.79 of 2008 in O.S.No.81 of 2007, regarding the age of ink in a disputed promissory note.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Application for Sending Promissory Note to Forensic Science Department
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The defendant initially filed an application to send the disputed documents to the Forensic Science Department but later withdrew it. Subsequently, the defendant filed a new application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the promissory note to ascertain the age of the ink. The trial Court allowed this application, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, which led to the filing of a Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff.

Issue 2: Arguments of the Parties
The plaintiff argued that the trial Court erred in allowing the application as a similar one was withdrawn earlier without liberty to file another. The plaintiff also cited a previous judgment stating that determining the age of ink may not serve any useful purpose. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the earlier withdrawal was due to lack of facility and the new application was filed upon learning of the availability of the facility. The defendant believed that expert opinion on the age of ink could benefit their case.

Issue 3: Court's Decision
The Court noted that in a case like this, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to prove the execution of the promissory note. Sending the note for ink analysis may only lead to confusion, as previously held by the Court. Additionally, the Court observed that the defendant did not obtain liberty when withdrawing the earlier application. Consequently, the trial Court's order was set aside, and the Civil Revision Petition was allowed with no costs incurred.

This judgment highlights the importance of establishing evidence in civil cases and the Court's discretion in determining the relevance of expert opinions in legal proceedings.