THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1613 OF 2010 29-07-2010 Between: D.V.Seshaiah son of Shankaraiah ..petitioner Vs. B.Raghava Reddy son of Subbarmi Reddy …Respondent. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1613 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is misconceived. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.355 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole instituted by the respondent herein for recovery of the suit schedule amount based on a promissory note. The revision petitioner after conclusion of the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant filed I.A.No.848 of 2009 seeking sending of certain credit bills dated 14-09-2005, 05-12-2005 and 06-12- 2009 along with what are the claimed to be the admitted signatures of the plaintiff and the suit promissory note to a Government Expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for examination and opinion. According to the revision petitioner (in I.A.No.848 of 2009), the plaintiff was running an aqua-feed business and the defendant is pursuing prawn culture, in Madanur Village. The defendant used to purchase aqua feed from the plaintiff. According to business practice the plaintiff used to supply the aqua feed on credit basis and used to obtain blank signed pronotes towards security for the advance feed supply in respect of every season. The defendant used to handover the total prawn crop to the plaintiff and thereupon the plaintiff would fix up the rate for crop, deduct his dues and pay the defendant the balance amount and thereafter return the blank signed promissory notes. According to the defendant, consistent with the established practice as above, he obtained feed on credit basis from the plaintiff for the season-2005 and furnished six blank pronotes; in February 2006 he handed over the crop to the plaintiff but the plaintiff failed to return the blank signed promissory notes but instead filed the suit on the basis of the promissory notes furnished by the defendant. Further according to the defendant/revision petitioner, during the cross examination of PW.1/plaintiff, the defendant confronted him with the three credit bills dated 14-09-2005, 05-12-2005 and 16-12-2005 allegedly containing the plaintiff’s signature. The plaintiff denied passing the credit bills and also denied that he did aqua feed business. In the circumstances, the defendant wanted these credit bills examined by the expert to establish that the signatures thereon are of the plaintiff. The court below rejected I.A. 848 of 2009 by recording the following reasons: 9. Upon hearing both sides I carefully perused the record as well as the documents which were referred by the petitioner/defendant. So far as the credit bills are concerned the petitioner/defendant sought three credit bills dt.14.9.2005, 5.12.2005 and 6.12.2005 containing the alleged signatures of the respondent/plaintiff and said documents may be send to an expert for comparison. That was opposed by the respondent counsel on two grounds. The first thing is those bills are not at all related to the plaintiff and defendant and those bills are not at all given by the plaintiff and their specific case is since signatures on the suit promissory notes are admitted, sending the credit bills said to be containing signature to an expert is not necessary. Since opinion of an expert is not conclusive and when there is a clear direct evidence is available there is no necessity to obtain any corroborative evidence. In the above circumstances when I carefully perused the credit bills dt.14.9.2005, 5.12.2005 and 6.12.2005 that bill stands in the name of one Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Acqua C/o D.Satyanarayana and in the said bills somebody signed as B.Raghavareddy. No where in the defendant/petitioner’s case i.e., in the written statement or in the evidence affidavit, is that he did acqua business under the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Acqua or and said Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Acqua belong to him and on that behalf his agent by name Satyanarayana obtained the credit bills. There is no whisper at all in the written statement or in the evidence of DW.1 that he was running prawn culture under the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Acqua. So the contentions of the petitioner/defendant to see the documents and send the same to an expert is concerned those documents are beyond the pleadings of the petitioner/defendant to see the documents and send the same to an expert is concerned those documents are beyond the pleadings of the petitioner/defendant. More over nowhere stated i.e., either in the written statement or in the evidence of DW.1 that the credit bills dt.14.9.2005, 5.12.2005 and 6.12.2005 were given to him by the plaintiff by signing on it and it was given in the name Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Acqua C/o D.Satyanarayana. If really those three credit bills were given to the defendant herein it might have containing the name of the defendant or it must be the case of the defendant that he did pawn culture in the name of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Acqua. So on the factual aspect those documents cannot be send to an expert for comparison with the signature of the plaintiff. 10. More over it is a settled law right from 1964 by Apex Court held in Shashi Kumar Benerjee and others Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 Apex Court held the expert evidence to hand writing is opinion evidence and mere opinion of an expert cannot override the positive evidence of attesting witnesses.”—Apart from the said judgment there is another judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1728 wherein it was held the evidence is in the nature of opinion and therefore can never be conclusive. No doubt the opinion of an expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of Evidence Act. That too it is not conclusive. So when the substantial and positive evidence is before the court i.e., attesting witnesses before the court seeking an expert opinion regarding the bills which are also not in between the plaintiff and defendant, this court is of the opinion that it is not desirable and not maintainable. Since it is beyond the pleadings to seek opinion of expert. 11.Now coming to the other aspects of sending the suit pronote to an expert for comparison of the age of the ink of the promissory note is concerned according the petitioner/defendant he is handed over signed blank promissory note in 2005 and in the year 2007it was filled up thereby the age of the ink of the body of the promissory note can be sought which will prove the case of the defendant. On this aspect is concerned, on perusal of the Ex.A-1, promissory note with a naked eye it is clear that the said pronote was written with ball point zel penk ink. In this regard, in fact, if a standard ink pen is used, it will have a composition which lends itself to an accurate time by dating method. Time dating on ink is dependent upon the composition of the ink and may be determined through analysis such as solvent extraction and spectroscopy. Several methods have been applied to time, date of ink deposited. If commercially available pens that is like ball pen are used, determining the age of an ink writing that has been deposited on paper is not possible. If standard pen ink is used, it does not completely dry for several years. Ink that is newer, and therefore less set, dissolves in suitable solvents at a faster rate than ink that is older and dryer. But whereas if commercial available pen ink is used it is very difficult to decide the accuracy of age as well as time of using the pen. More over commercial ink compositions has been found to yield inaccurate results in determining the real age of the ink whereby such results are not accepted with a large degree of confidence. More so, if a commercial ink pen is used and if it is to be compared it has no reliability.” This court discerns no error in the application of law or perversity in the reasoning of the trial court in rejecting I.A.No.848 of 2009 by the order impugned, warranting interference in this revision. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 29th JULY 2010 TSNR