9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Lab., Govt. of NCT, Delhi to find out the age of the ink used on the stamps. 2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of Rs. 5,83,400/- by propounding a pronote and receipt dated 11.2.1998. The defence taken by the defendant-petitioner is the plaintiff-respondent has manipulated the disputed pronote and receipt in his favour by alleging that it was executed on 11.2.1998. The defendant-petitioner has claimed that he had signed the stamps and had given the figure of Rs. 4,70,000/- on the blank pronote and receipt to one Sh. Sushil Kumar Singla of M/s Singla Trading Company, Sirsa many years before 11.2.1998. The plaintiff-respondent has also examined one Sh. Navdeep Gupta, an expert fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e can give the age of ink and moreover if the age of the ink is determined, even then a ink prepared 10 years back can be used after a period of gap of 10 years. So, it cannot be determined when the ink was used on the writing of the pronote and receipt. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by sending the disputed pronote and receipt for the examination of the age of ink used on stamps, from the Forensic Science Lab., Delhi. So, the application filed by the defendant for examining the age of ink used on the stamp from Forensic Science Lab., Delhi is dismissed. 3. Sh. Rajesh Bhatheja, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Civil Judge suffers from patent illegality because the examinatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. The basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and the determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the Court then such an investigation could be permitted. However, in the present case, such investigation is not likely to help to conclusively prove that the writing dated 11.2.1998 was infact recorded earlier because the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing. If the ink is manufactured five years before the date of the execution of the document and used on 11.2.1998 for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
