Judgment : 1. Rejection of petitioner’s I.A.No.4 under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC by order dated 15.6.2013 in O. S. No. 134/2012, of the 1st Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhadravathi, has resulted in this petition by the defendant. 2. Respondent instituted the suit for recovery of money, which was opposed, by filing written statement of the petitioner, arraigned as defendant, alleging that during the year 1996 his father-in law by name N. Krishne Gowda obtained a loan from the plaintiff while petitioner affixed his signature to a blank pro- note as a security for due repayment of the loan. In other words, admitted the execution of the document but alleged that it was meant to be as a security for the loan advanced to his father-in- law. 3. The trial court framed issues, parties entered trial, recorded the testimony of their respective witnesses and marked documents. On conclusion of the trial, petitioner filed I.A.No.4 under Order 26 Rule 10A CPC to direct a scientific investigation/chemical examination and comparison of the ink to ascertain whether signatures of the petitioner Ex.P-1(a) and Ex. P- 2(a) are affixed on 15.8.2010 as alleged in the pro-note and consideration receipt and the other writings there on i.e., the signatures of witnesses and scribe Ex.P-1(b) & (c) were of the same date, since there is dispute over relative age of the writings, by appointing the Chief Executive, All India Forgery Detection Forensic Finger Prints Bureau, Agra and to submit an opinion. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it was stated that the plaintiff created a concocted suit promissory note which was in fact was blank an execution meant as security for the loan borrowed by the deponent's father-in-law by name N. Krishne Gowda since deceased during the year 1996, misused by filling up particulars at the time of filing the suit. It is in the backdrop of the said facts the deponent stated that there was need for scientific investigation and chemical examination. 4. The application was opposed by filing statement of objections of the plaintiff interacts denying the allegations and that the evidence of the expert will not assist the defendant in the manner in which it is sought for. 5. The trial Court having regard to the pleadings of the parties and following the opinion of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Yashpal VS. 5. The trial Court having regard to the pleadings of the parties and following the opinion of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Yashpal VS. Kartar Singh, AIR 2003 P&H 344 , that age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing if the ink in dispute was manufactured five years prior to the date of execution of the document and used effectively on a particular date, for the first time, and an expert opinion on the age of the ink will not resolve any controversy, but will help create confusion, accordingly, rejected the I.A. 6. There is no dispute that petitioner did not lay evidence to substantiate the fact that his signature on the blank Pro note was affixed in the year 1996 or that the signature was obtained 111 the presence of certain persons whose testimony is also unavailable much less his father-in-law N. Krishne Gowda, if present at the time of affixing his signature. Obviously, the father-in-law was not examined because petitioner claimed that he was deceased and there was no material placed before the Court to establish that -fact. It is also a matter of record that Krishne Gowda obtained a loan during the year 1996, by placing relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence. 7. Be that as it may. The very fact that there is nothing on record to establish the date of manufacture of the ink with which petitioner affixed his signature on the pro note was itself sufficient to reject the I.A. In my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances, the trial Court justifiably rejected the application. Petition devoid of merit, is rejected.