2018 (2) TMI 2084 - HC - Indian Laws

Undertaking scientific examination of alleged Will - opinion regarding age of the ink or any other relevant matter - Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT - Under provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code a discretion is conferred on the Court to direct scientific examination of any document which in its opinion would be relevant for adjudicating the dispute in question. The Will dated 06/11/1991 is the document of contest between the parties. That document has been laminated and therefore the defendants were justified in expressing an apprehension that removal of lamination cover could affect the document itself. It is therefore that a statement has been made on behalf of the respondent that the expert concerned without removing the lamination would examine the said document in presence of the parties or their representatives. The manner in which such examination would be done is stated in pursis dated 02/08/2017. By taking adequate precaution to ensure that the document in question as laminated is handled with care, its scientific examination can be permitted in the light of discretion exercised by the trial Court. The same can be done by following the modality as stated by the expert and mentioned in the pursis dated 02/08/2017. It is to be noted that after the document is examined, the opinion of the expert would be available on record - While according to the defendants it is not possible to determine the age of the ink on the document, according to the expert sought to be appointed by the plaintiff such determination is possible. The value of that report as well as the question whether the method adopted by the expert throws light on the age of the ink on the document are matters which can be considered after the report of the expert is received - contentions of both the parties in that regard can be kept open for evaluation by the trial Court in the light of provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10-A(2) of the Code are concerned. No interference is called for as far as the order passed by the trial Court - the trial Court shall direct examination of the document dated 06/11/1991 by taking into consideration the contents of pursis dated 02/08/2017 - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders below Exhibit-98 and 108 for scientific examination of alleged Will dated 06/11/1991.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the trial Court allowing the scientific examination of the alleged Will dated 06/11/1991. The first order permitted the examination of the document, while the subsequent order noted that the document could not be examined without removing the lamination. The trial Court directed physical verification and the custody of the document to be given to an expert for examination. The petitioners argued that no scientific method was available to determine the age of the ink on the document, raising concerns about potential tampering and delay tactics. They cited legal precedents to support their position.

The respondent, on the other hand, supported the trial Court's decision, stating that the examination was necessary to determine the age of the ink on the contested document. The respondent emphasized that the expert's opinion could be challenged, and the examination could proceed without removing the lamination cover.

The Court examined the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the Court to direct scientific examination of relevant documents. Considering the contested Will as the focal point of the dispute, the Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the lamination cover potentially affecting the document. The Court noted the expert's assurance that the examination could be conducted without removing the lamination, with both parties or their representatives present.

Ultimately, the Court found that with proper care, the scientific examination of the laminated document could proceed as per the expert's proposed method. The Court emphasized the importance of the expert's report in determining the age of the ink on the document, acknowledging the differing views of the parties on the feasibility of such determination. The Court directed the trial Court to proceed with the examination based on the expert's method, allowing both parties to raise objections and evaluate the expert's report before determining the age of the ink.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, upholding the trial Court's decision to allow the scientific examination of the contested document. The parties were granted the opportunity to challenge the expert's report and further discuss the determination of the age of the ink on the Will after receiving the expert's findings.