SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, June 14, 2023

Printed For: 2150112 DEON DYLAN FERNANDES, School of Law Christ University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003 SCC OnLine P&H 692 : (2003) 3 RCR (Civil) 701 : PLR (2003) 135 P&H
502 : AIR 2003 P&H 344 : (2004) 1 CCC 502 : (2004) 1 Civ LT 148

Punjab and Haryana High Court

(BEFORE M.M. KUMAR, J.)

Yash Pal … Petitioner;

Versus
Kartar Singh … Respondent.
Civil Revision No. 2434 of 2003
Decided on May 19, 2003
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 26 R. 10-A — Commission for scientific investigation —
Determination of the age of the ink used on pronote — Held, such investigation not helpful —
Suit for recovery filed on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 11.2.1998 — Defendant
alleged that the plaintiff manipulated the disputed pronote and receipt in his favour and that
the same was signed many years before 11.2.1998 — Defendant further made an
application for sending the disputed pronote to Forensic Science Lab to find out the age of
the ink used on the stamps — Trial court dismissed the application on the ground that no
useful purpose would be served by doing so — Order affirmed — Held, discretion is vested in
the civil Court to get any scientific investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or
expedient in the interest of justice — However, in the present case, such investigation was
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 was 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 would be served by allowing such an application
(Para 5)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.M. KUMAR, J.:— 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 allegingthat 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 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:
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, June 14, 2023
Printed For: 2150112 DEON DYLAN FERNANDES, School of Law Christ University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The defendant-applicant has filed this application

Page: 702

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 Ld. counsel of 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 10A 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 tit, 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 afore-mentioned 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 the determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the Court then such
an investigation could be permitted. However, in the person 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
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Wednesday, June 14, 2023
Printed For: 2150112 DEON DYLAN FERNANDES, School of Law Christ University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Petition dismissed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.