ORDER : 1. Defendant in suit filed the above revision petition against the order dated 01.10.2022 in I.A. No. 1132 of 2022 in O.S. No. 712 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 712 of 2019 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. 3. Defendant by filing written statement is contesting the suit. In the written statement, defendant contended as under: “9. This defendant humbly submits that, the plaintiff is an utter stranger to this defendant with regard to the transactions as alleged by him and in fact this defendant never executed any promissory note in favour of anybody much less the plaintiff in the above suit. Moreover, this defendant has neither need nor necessity to borrow such a huge amount from anybody. 10. This defendant further submits that, he is having marital disputes with his wife and the wife of this defendant is having illegal affairs with the plaintiff in the above suit. It seems that the wife of this defendant might have planted the plaintiff in the above suit to harass this defendant endlessly and the alleged promissory note was at the residence of this defendant and due to marital disputes between this defendant and his wife, she ought to have given the signed blank promissory note to the plaintiff, and this plaintiff fabricated the same and filed the above suit in order to get wrongful gain from this defendant.” 4. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A. No. 1132 of 2022 under Section 45 of Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note dated 16.05.2016 to any Forensic expert for opinion to ascertain the age of the contents of the filled document with that of signatures of the defendant and also the age of the document and revenue stamps and pass such other and further orders as the Court deems fit and proper. 5. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter-alia that the suit promissory note dated 16.05.2016 was a blank signed pronote; that promissory note is very old document which is about more than three years before the alleged suit document date i.e. 16.05.2016; that plaintiff filled the said document according to his convenience as such the age of the ink through which the entire alleged prommisory note has been filled with that of the age of his signatures and age of the document and revenue stamps should be ascertained. 6. Plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application. 7. Trial Court by order dated 01.10.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, defendant filed the present revision petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in view of the defence taken in the written statement, the application is filed to send the document for expert to ascertain the age of the document and revenue stamps and also to ascertain the contents of the filled documents with the signature. He would also submit that the trial Court dismissed the application without considering the same and placed reliance upon the orders of this Court without considering the judgments in G.V. Rami Reddy vs. D. Mohan Raju, AIR 2019 A.P. 83 , Namineni Audi Seshaiah vs. Mumburu Mohan Rao, 2018 (6) ALT 285 (SB), Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since deceased and after him his legal Representatives and Others, AIR 1964 SC 529 . 10. Suit O.S. No. 712 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. The specific defence of the defendant is that due to marital disputes between himself and his wife, wife of the defendant gave singed blank promissory note to the plaintiff and plaintiff fabricated the same and filed the suit. 11. Nothing was mentioned in the written statement about the fact that promissory note is very old document. But, for the first time by filing I.A. No. 1132 of 2022, defendant raised this plea. 11. Nothing was mentioned in the written statement about the fact that promissory note is very old document. But, for the first time by filing I.A. No. 1132 of 2022, defendant raised this plea. Even in G.V. Ramireddy vs. D. Mohan Raju, 2019 (2) ALT 253 relied upon by the plaintiff, it was observed at Para No. 10 as follows: “Therefore, in a given case, though the ink or a pen was manufactured in yester years, there is a possibility that a person may either deliberately or unknowingly use such ink/pen to make a writing or signature several years after its manufacture. In such an event, mere determination of the age of ink/writing by an expert will not clinch the issue as to when exactly the maker has written/signed the document. Therefore, the Courts must take note of this aspect while appreciating the rival contentions.” 12. In G.V. Ramireddy’s case, learned Single Judge considered the ratio in Namineni Audi Seshaiah vs. Mumburu Mohan Rao, 2018 (6) ALT 285 (SB). 13. In Kambala Nageswara Rao vs. Kesana Balakrishna, AIR 2014 A.P. 37 held as follows: The application, no doubt, is filed under Section 45 of the Act, and it is not uncommon that such applications are filed in the suits for recovery of money on the strength of promissory notes. However, the prayer in the I.A. is somewhat peculiar. Even while not disputing his signature on the promissory note, the petitioner wanted the age thereof to be determined. Several complications arise in this regard. The mere determination of the age, even if there exists any facility for that purpose; cannot, by itself, determine the age of the signature. In a given case, the ink, or for that matter, the pen, may have been manufactured several years ago, before it was used, to put a signature. If there was a gap of 10 years between the date of manufacture of ink or pen, and the date on which, the signature was put or document was written, the document cannot be said to have been executed or signed on the date of manufacture of ink or pen. It is only in certain forensic cases, that such questions may become relevant. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and dismissed the application. 14. It is only in certain forensic cases, that such questions may become relevant. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and dismissed the application. 14. In Shashi Kumar Benerjee and Others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal Representatives and Others, AIR 1964 SC 529 the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No. 23 held as follows: “Finally we may point out that the expert admitted in his evidence that it was only by a chemical test that it could be definitely stated whether a particular writing was of a particular year or period. He also admitted that he applied no. chemical tests in this case. So his opinion cannot on his own showing have that value which it might have had if he had applied a chemical test. Besides we may add that Osborn on “Questioned Documents” at p. 464 says even with respect to chemical tests that “the chemical tests to determine age also, as a rule, are a mere excuse to make a guess and furnish no. reliable data upon which a definite opinion can be based. In these circumstances the mere opinion of the expert cannot override the positive evidence of the attesting witnesses in a case like this where there are no. suspicious circumstances.” 15. In Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai vs. J. Venkateswara Rao, AIR 1994 A.P. 90 learned single judge was pleased to extract passage from author Osborn book to the following effect: “There are those also who pretend to say how old a writing is by merely examining it with a hand magnifier or a microscope. This always is an exhibition, either of ignorance or of dishonest presumption. The chemical tests to determine age also, as a rule, are a mere excuse to make a guess and furnish no reliable data upon which a definite opinion can be based as can easily be demonstrated by fair tests on documents of known age.” 16. In Polana Jawaharlal Nehru vs. Maddirala Prabhakara Reddy, 2017 (3) ALT 712 learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as follows: “15. It is an admitted fact that the science relating to forensic examination of Handwriting, especially in relation to the fixation of the age of the ink, is not perfect. In Polana Jawaharlal Nehru vs. Maddirala Prabhakara Reddy, 2017 (3) ALT 712 learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as follows: “15. It is an admitted fact that the science relating to forensic examination of Handwriting, especially in relation to the fixation of the age of the ink, is not perfect. In cases of this nature any reference of a document to the Handwriting Expert just for the purpose of finding out whether the ink was 5 years old at the time of institution of the suit or 3 years old at the time of institution of the suit, is not likely to bring any fruitful result. Interestingly in one of the books relied upon by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court, namely Handwriting Forensics by B.R. Sharma, Chapter 25 contains a Glossary under the title Documenpaedia. In the said chapter, there is an interesting portion relating to INK AGE. This portion reads as follows: INK AGE: Age of the writing can sometime be given in relative terms. Upkeep of the document plays an important role. Ink has been extensively studied to fix the age of the documents. There are two aspects which have been explored. The compositions of inks in common usage have been changing continuously. It was the carbon ink (known as Indian Ink) to start with. It changed to iron tannin inks, then to water-soluble dye inks and later to organic solvent inks as for ball pens. New dye inks are coming up continuously. Thin Layer Chromatography (LTC) can easily identify the ink dye even from an ink line without visibly damaging the writing line. High Performance TLC gives better results. The date of induction of a particular ink, therefore can be ascertained with the help of its manufacturer. If a document is purported to be written prior to its induction of the ink, it is obviously false. In some countries data relating to induction of various inks is kept for ready reference. Some inks fade with time. The extent of fading may give some idea about the age of the writing. Inks diffuse in the paper. The extent of diffusion may give some guess about the age of writing. Iron inks become darker in colour with age. The shade of the ink may give some idea of the age of writing. Some inks fade with time. The extent of fading may give some idea about the age of the writing. Inks diffuse in the paper. The extent of diffusion may give some guess about the age of writing. Iron inks become darker in colour with age. The shade of the ink may give some idea of the age of writing. In some countries age marker chemicals, usually radioactive materials, are added to the ink. They indicate the age of the writing. Fresh ink is easily smudged. Older inks do not smudge easily. The ease of smudging may give a rough estimate of the age of the writing. The methods listed above look impressive. But in practice it is seldom that correct age of the document can be determined as there are many variables which affect the changes in the ink. Age markers can give correct age of the writings. However, they are not used in India. 16. Therefore, it is clear that no useful purpose will be served by referring the document to hand writing expert. 17. In Surabhi Kishan Rao vs. Bejhjanki Indira, MANU/TL/0184/2019 it was observed as follows: “8. As compared to the decisions Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai (supra) and Namineni Audi Seshaiah (supra), I am of opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court referred in Shashi Kumar Banerjee (supra) as well as reasoning in judgment in Kambala Nageswara Rao (supra) are more persuasive and that the chemical tests to determine age appear to be a mere excuse to make a guess and would not furnish any reliable data upon which a definite opinion can be based. There is also confusion created by the date when the ink used in the pen to make the handwriting was manufactured and the gap between the dates of manufacture of the ink of writing on a document using the said ink. 9. The trial Court has rightly followed the decision in Kambala Nageswara Rao (supra) and declined relief to the petitioner.” 18. In the case on hand as pointed out supra, defendant admitted his signature however, pleaded that it is a blank signed document. In the interlocutory application, it was asserted that the said document is three years old. There is no averment in the written statement regarding fabrication of promissory of yester years. In the case on hand as pointed out supra, defendant admitted his signature however, pleaded that it is a blank signed document. In the interlocutory application, it was asserted that the said document is three years old. There is no averment in the written statement regarding fabrication of promissory of yester years. For the first time in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, such a plea was raised. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed supra, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and the reasons assigned by the Court below are neither illegal nor perverse warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.