2016 (12) TMI 1889 - HC - Indian Laws

Application seeking to send the same for scientific examination through experts - case of the petitioner is that the signatures and the matter in the promissory note dated 20.2.2010 were filled up on different dates - HELD THAT - In the absence of the scientific expert even if the argument of the petitioner was to be considered on account of the impracticability involved it would be only a futile exercise. In that view of the matter the order of the lower Court does not call for any interference. Therefore this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. This civil revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of Application seeking scientific examination of a promissory note.
2. Reliance on judgments from different High Courts and Supreme Court regarding the availability of scientific experts.

Issue 1: Dismissal of Application seeking scientific examination of a promissory note

The civil revision petition challenged the docket order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nellore, dismissing an Application filed by the petitioner requesting a scientific examination of a promissory note. The petitioner alleged that the signatures and content on the promissory note were filled up on different dates. The Court referred to a previous judgment where it was noted that no expert was available to determine such aspects. The petitioner's counsel cited a Supreme Court judgment where a similar application was allowed in comparable circumstances. However, the respondent's counsel argued that sending the document for expert examination would be a futile exercise due to the non-availability of scientific experts in the country for determining such details. The Court concluded that without the presence of a scientific expert, considering the petitioner's argument would be impractical and futile, leading to the dismissal of the civil revision petition.

Issue 2: Reliance on judgments from different High Courts and Supreme Court regarding the availability of scientific experts

The respondent's counsel relied on various judgments from the Madras High Court to support the argument that sending documents for scientific examination without the availability of experts would be pointless. The judgments cited included cases like R. Jagadeesan v. N. Ayyasamy, K. Vairavan v. Selvaraj, and A. Thiyagarajan v. G. Ramachandran, among others. These judgments emphasized the impracticality of sending documents for expert analysis when no experts were available to determine specific details like the date of writing. The respondent also mentioned a specific case where the judgment was confirmed upon dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, further strengthening the argument against the need for scientific examination in the absence of relevant experts. The Court, considering the precedents and the lack of scientific experts, upheld the lower Court's order and dismissed the civil revision petition, emphasizing the impracticability of the petitioner's request.

In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the civil revision petition seeking scientific examination of a promissory note due to the impracticality of the request in the absence of available scientific experts, relying on previous judgments highlighting the futility of such actions without expert support.