THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.111 of 2009 Dated 21st August 2009 Between: Podila Rajani Devi, w/o Sankara Pitchaiah …Petitioner And Podila Nagaiah s/o Venkateswarlu …Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.111 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is the plaintiff in this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the order allowing an application purported to have filed by the respondent/defendant herein under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note dated 9-9-2004 for the purpose of expert opinion in order to ascertain the age of ink used for filling up the body of the said note. Briefly, the facts of the case, are that in the suit filed for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note dated 9-9-2004 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant, the same was denied asserting that he never executed a said note and it was brought into existence by forging the same. Further, the respondent had obtained some signatures on the blank promissory notes and the same might have been used after filling the same later, which is evident from the ink used for both the said purposes, and therefore, for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the ink on the note, it necessitates for such an exercise. The said application was contested denying about any such necessity, especially, pointing out that if really there had been some earlier transaction prior to the suit pro-note it is for the petitioner defendant to establish before he ventures to take any such exercise and whereas he not having done is not entitled to seek such relief. The Court below by taking into consideration the submissions from both sides and especially having regard to the principles laid down in Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai vs. J.Venkateswara Rao[1], held that it is just and necessary to send the document to the expert for ascertaining the age of the ink as sought for. Hence, the revision. Heard both sides in detail. The main submission made is that in the circumstances there is no such warrant for sending the document to the excerpt nor any case has been made out and the same was sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents. In support reliance was placed on Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai’s case (Supra 1) where a learned Single Judge of this Court Justice M.N.Rao, as he then was, held that such an exercise is not totally irrelevant factor for adjudication of dispute and opinion can be sought for determining the age. I n Uttamchand Sarma v. Jasti Chinna Veerabhadrarao[2] a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld an order dismissing an application for the self-same purpose on the ground that evidence of expert cannot over ride the positive evidence of the attesting witnesses. In Yashpal v. Kartar Singh[3] a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that age of ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing. In the facts and circumstances, it was contended by the petitioner by placing reliance on Umadevi v. T.C.Sidhan[4] to buttress the plea as to the proper exercise of discretion, which should be judicial. Whereas in the present case no such consideration has been adhered to, hence, the order requires to be set aside. On a consideration of the aforesaid principles and especially in view of the well established principles that no doubt the expert opinion is not the conclusive one and it is always open to fall back on the substantive evidence produced by the parties during the course of the trial, but it will be of little probative value. However in such situation to avoid a comment that at least such an exercise should have been taken recourse to, the applications are being filed and documents are sent for expert opinion. The Court below by taking into account the pleadings and the respective pleas taken, thought it fit to allow the same, and therefore, having exercised such discretion with which I do not find any error to warrant an interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the revision and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J DATE:21-8-2008 grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.111 of 2009 Dt. -08-2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO PD Judgment In C.R.P.No.111 of 2009 [1] 1993 (3) ALT 446 [2] AIR 2004 AP 225 [3] AIR 2003 P & H 344 [4] AIR 2004 SC 1772