Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yash Pal vs Kartar Singh on 19 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2003P&H344
ORDER M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 20-2-2003 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gidderbaha dismissing the applicant of the defendant-petitioner filed under Order 26, Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code. The prayer made in the application was that the disputed pronote and receipt 11-2-1998 be sent to Forensic Science Lab. Govt. of N.C.T., Delhi to find out the age of the ink used on the stamps.
2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of Rs. 5,83,400/- by propounding a pronote and receipt dated 11-2-1998. The defence taken by the defendant-petitioner is the plaintiff-respondent has manipulated the disputed pronote and receipt in his favour by alleging that it was executed on 11-2-1998. The defendant-petitioner has claimed that he had signed the stamps and had given the figure of Rs. 4,70,000/- on the blank pronote and receipt to one Shri Sushil Kumar Singla of M/s. Singla Trading Company, Sirsa many years before 11-2-1998. The plaintiff-respondent has also examined one Shri Navdeep Gupta, an expert from Patiala, to prove the signatures of the defendant-petitioner who has stated that the age of the ink used in the signature cannot be determined as he did not possess the instrument of polyview system. He further stated that the age of the ink could be successfully determined on these disputed document by the Forensic Science Lab., Delhi. The defendant-petitioner has also claimed that it would be necessary for just decision of the case that the document be examined from the forensic Science Lab., Delhi with the object of determining the age of the ink. The application was opposed. The Civil Judge dismissed the same by recording the following order :
"The defendant-applicant has filed this application for sending the disputed pronote and receipt dated 11-2-1998 for examining the age of the ink used on the stamps from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT. Delhi. The defendant-applicant has stated that the plaintiff has manipulated the disputed pronote and receipt in his favour alleging it dated 11-2-1998, whereas the defendant has signed the stamps and had given the figure of Rs. 4,70,000.00 on blank pronote and receipt to Sushil Kumar Singla of M/s. Singla Trading Company, Sirsa many years before 11-2-1998. The defendant-applicant has also stated that Navdeep Gupta, Expert examined by the plaintiff stated that he cannot tell the age of the ink used in the signatures and amount on the stamps. On the other hand the Id. Counsel for the plaintiff has stated that no science can give the age of ink and moreover if the age of the ink is determined, even then a ink prepared 10 years back can be used after a period of gap of 10 years. So, it cannot be determined when the ink was used on the writing of the pronote and receipt. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by sending the disputed pronote and receipt for the examination of the age of ink used on stamps, from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi. So the application filed by the defendant for examining the age of ink used on the stamp from Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi is dismissed."
3. Shri Rajesh Bhatheja, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Civil Judge suffers from patent illegality because the examination by the Forensic Science Lab. would have vital effect on the result of the case. The learned counsel has pointed out that if the age of the ink is determined then the truth will come out that the defendant-petitioner never appended his signatures on the date recorded by the plaintiff-respondent on the pronote and receipt. According to the learned counsel as the amount involved is very heavy, such an opportunity should not have been declined.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Order 26, Rule 10-A of the Code reads as under :
"Order XXVI. Commissions to examine witnesses.
Rule 10A. Commission for scientific investigation. (1) Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court.
(2) The provisions of Rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under Rule 9."
5. A perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that a discretion has been vested in the Civil Court to get any scientific investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. The basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the Court then such an investigation could be permitted. However, in the present case, such investigation is not likely to help to conclusively prove that the writing dated 11-2-1998 was infact recorded earlier because the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing. If the ink is manufactured five years before the date of the execution of the document and used on 11-2-1998 for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion. Therefore, no useful purpose could be served by allowing such an application. It is true that opinion of expert is relevant under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but in the present case that has to be read with Order 26. Rule 10A of the Code. The basic rationale is whether such scientific investigation is going to advance the cause of Justice and would be necessary for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Civil Judge. The revision petition does not disclose any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.