2003 (5) TMI 536 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Order 26 Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for sending disputed pronote and receipt to Forensic Science Lab.
2. Disputed pronote and receipt dated 11.2.1998 in a recovery suit.
3. Defendant's claim of manipulation by the plaintiff.
4. Expert evidence regarding age of ink and necessity of forensic examination.
5. Challenge to the order dismissing the application for forensic examination.

Issue 1: Application under Order 26 Rule 10-A for forensic examination
The petition was filed under Section 115 of the Code challenging the order dismissing the application under Order 26 Rule 10-A for sending the disputed pronote and receipt to the Forensic Science Lab. The defendant sought to determine the age of the ink used on the stamps, claiming manipulation by the plaintiff.

Issue 2: Disputed pronote and receipt in recovery suit
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery based on a pronote and receipt dated 11.2.1998. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff manipulated the documents, asserting that the defendant had signed the stamps and provided the amount long before the recorded date.

Issue 3: Defendant's claim of manipulation
The defendant contended that the plaintiff manipulated the pronote and receipt in his favor, stating that the ink's age could reveal the truth about the date of the signatures. The defendant argued that the forensic examination would have a significant impact on the case due to the substantial amount involved.

Issue 4: Expert evidence and necessity of forensic examination
An expert witness stated that the age of the ink could not be determined without specific equipment, suggesting examination by the Forensic Science Lab. The Civil Judge dismissed the application, emphasizing the inability to determine the ink's age and its relevance to the case.

Issue 5: Challenge to the order
The defendant challenged the order, claiming it suffered from patent illegality as forensic examination could affect the case outcome significantly. However, the Court found that the discretion to conduct scientific investigations under Order 26 Rule 10-A should serve the interest of justice. In this case, determining the ink's age was unlikely to conclusively prove the manipulation, leading to confusion rather than clarity. The Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the need for scientific investigation to advance justice and adjudicate parties' rights.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit. The Court highlighted the discretion granted to conduct scientific investigations under Order 26 Rule 10-A, emphasizing the need for such examinations to serve the interest of justice and advance the cause of adjudicating parties' rights. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's well-reasoned order, as the forensic examination was deemed unlikely to provide conclusive evidence in the case at hand.