The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to re-sent a promissory note to the FSL for ink age determination, noting such an exercise was futile after a previous inconclusive report.
No relief granted; the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2214 of 2011
ORDER
The respondent herein filed O.S.No.7616 of 2007 for recovery of money based on a promissory note, which was marked as Ex.A1. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.1249 of 2008 seeking to send Ex.A1 to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory(FSL), Hyderabad, for determining the age of the ink of his signature and the same was allowed. The FSL returned the document stating that it is not possible to ascertain the exact age of ink of writing/signatures. Again, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1077 of 2010 seeking to send Ex.A1 to Indian Security Press, Nasik Road, Nasik, Maharashtra, to determine the state, age and year of a Revenue Stamp on Ex.A1 for proper adjudication. Through order dated 03.12.2010, the Court below dismissed the said I.A. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
3. The petitioner stated in his affidavit that at the time of payment of the chit amount, the respondent had taken his signatures on a blank promissory note, receipt and blank cheque. He also stated that though he paid the entire subscription of chit
amount long back, the respondent did not return the documents, but filed this suit by filling up the promissory note and the receipt. When once FSL returned the document stating that it is not possible to ascertain the exact age of ink of writing/signatures, again sending Ex.A1 for determining the age is a futile exercise and it is only to drag on the proceedings. The order impugned also shows that the petitioner himself admitted his signatures on Ex.A1 in the cross-examination. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
Date:01.07.2011 sj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing an application to re-sent a document for forensic examination, given the previous inconclusive report, was erroneous.
petitioner
respondent
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
