CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S.151, O.26 R.10-A — APPLICATION TO SEND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION — DETERMINATION OF “AGE OF INK/AGE OF WRITING/AGE OF REVENUE STAMP” — WHETHER SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE — Defendant filed I.A.No.700 of 2024 to send promissory note to Work Manager, Revenue Stamp Examiner, Nasik for determining (i) period of printing of the revenue stamp, (ii) age of ink used for writing, (iii) age of ink of signatures, attester and scribe — Earlier I.A.No.865/2022 filed for same relief was dismissed but later allowed by High Court in CRP No.35/2023 directing trial Court to refer document for expert opinion — Pursuant thereto, document was sent to TSFSL, Hyderabad; FSL, Thiruvananthapuram; and Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai — All three laboratories returned document stating no scientific method available to determine the age of ink, age of writing, or age of revenue stamp. — HELD: Trial Court rightly rejected I.A.No.700/2024. In view of categorical reports from three scientific laboratories, there exists no authenticated or reliable scientific technique for determination of absolute age of ink or writing. Filing repeated applications seeking same relief, despite knowledge of expert reports, is misconceived and intended only to protract proceedings. (Paras 11–13, 15–23, 25)

A. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S.151, O.26 R.10-A — APPLICATION TO SEND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION — DETERMINATION OF “AGE OF INK/AGE OF WRITING/AGE OF REVENUE STAMP” — WHETHER SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE

— Defendant filed I.A.No.700 of 2024 to send promissory note to Work Manager, Revenue Stamp Examiner, Nasik for determining (i) period of printing of the revenue stamp, (ii) age of ink used for writing, (iii) age of ink of signatures, attester and scribe — Earlier I.A.No.865/2022 filed for same relief was dismissed but later allowed by High Court in CRP No.35/2023 directing trial Court to refer document for expert opinion — Pursuant thereto, document was sent to TSFSL, Hyderabad; FSL, Thiruvananthapuram; and Neutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai — All three laboratories returned document stating no scientific method available to determine the age of ink, age of writing, or age of revenue stamp.
— HELD: Trial Court rightly rejected I.A.No.700/2024. In view of categorical reports from three scientific laboratories, there exists no authenticated or reliable scientific technique for determination of absolute age of ink or writing. Filing repeated applications seeking same relief, despite knowledge of expert reports, is misconceived and intended only to protract proceedings.
(Paras 11–13, 15–23, 25)

B. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 — S.45 — EXPERT EVIDENCE — FEASIBILITY AND LIMITATION OF FORENSIC AGE-DETERMINATION TESTS

— Position reaffirmed that determination of age of ink/writing has always been regarded as scientifically uncertain; even premier institutions like Central Forensic Institute, FSLs, and BARC have consistently held that absolute dating of ink/writing is not possible.
— Reference to Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, (1971) 1 SCC 396 — Supreme Court held that document experts cannot give definite opinion regarding probable date of ink or writing; dating problems extremely difficult; absence of reliable method for ascertaining age of writing.
— Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Court judgments reiterated: no scientific accurate test available for determining age of ink; any such exercise is futile.
— AP High Court precedents:
• Polana Jawaharlal Nehru v. Maddirala Prabhakara Reddy, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 74 — forensic science relating to age of ink not perfect; opinion seldom yields correct age.
• G.V. Rami Reddy v. D. Mohan Raj, 2019 SCC OnLine AP 72 — although reference to BARC facility noted, Court cautioned that even if ink was old, signature could be recent; therefore, age-of-ink test cannot conclusively determine date of execution.
• Vellneni Veeraiah v. Nallabothula Mohan Kumar Dharma, 2024 (1) ALT 173 — once Government experts state age-determination not possible, same document cannot be again referred to private expert.
(Paras 15–23)

C. CIVIL REVISION — ART.227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION — WHEN NOT TO INTERFERE

— Where trial Court rejected application after duly considering expert reports of all three scientific institutions, and finding clearly that no scientific method exists for determining age of ink/stamp, supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 not attracted.
— No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
— CRP dismissed.
(Paras 12–14, 22, 25–26)

D. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — REPEATED APPLICATIONS — ABUSE OF PROCESS

— Filing fresh application seeking same scientific test, despite previous reference made on Court’s direction and despite three laboratory reports confirming impossibility of such examination — Held: Application lacking bona fides; intended only to delay suit proceedings.
(Paras 12–13, 24)

RESULT:
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.