The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's power under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code to conduct scientific investigation by sending documents to a Forensic Expert for comparison, emphasizing the importance of expert opinion and the need to avoid comparing signatures without expert assistance.

The present revision has been filed by the defendant in the suit, challenging the dismissal of the application filed in I.A.No.402 of 2006 in O.S.No.685 of 2003, wherein, the petitioner has sought for the report of the Forensic Expert by comparing the alleged signature of the petitioner found in the suit agreement with that of the vakalat, written statement and Ex.A6, sale deed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner herein, is the defendant in the suit. The suit is filed for specific performance based upon the agreement signed by the petitioner. Pending the suit filed in O.S.No.685 of 2003, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking a report of the Forensic Expert for comparison of signatures. The said application was dismissed by the Court below, holding that Ex.A1 cannot be compared with the vakalat, written statement and Ex.A6, being a xeror copy of the sale deed. The Court below also dismissed the application on the ground of delay. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

3. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, the provisions contended in Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code need to be looked into. Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code has been inserted by Act 104 of 1976. The said provision is extracted hereunder for useful reference:

“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.”

A reading of the said provision would show that if a scientific investigation is required to be conducted in a suit for deciding the dispute between the parties and if in the opinion of the Court, if such investigation cannot be done before the Court, then the concerned court may issue a Commission to such person directing him to address such questions and get a report to the Court. Therefore, a specific power is conferred on the Court under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code to conduct scientific investigation for the purpose of deciding the case. In order to conduct such specific investigation, the Court has also got a power to appoint a Commissioner as indicated under Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. The word scientific investigation would also include sending the documents to a Forensic Expert in order to find out the truth or otherwise, as to whether a party to a suit has in fact signed the disputed document or not. Hence, the power is conferred under order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code to the Court to send a document to be compared with other admitted documents and get a report from the Forensic Expert.

5. The said document will have to be sent by appointing a Commissioner. The Commissioner appointed to the Court is an Advocate Commissioner, who incidentally is an officer of the Court answerable to the Court. Therefore, the Commissioner, being an officer of the Court, the custody of the document with Commissioner is deem to be a custody with Court.

6. The Civil Court has no doubt, got the powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the signatures made in a disputed documents with the admitted documents. The said power of the civil Court would be used sparingly and the Court below will have to give specific reasons while giving findings based upon that. However, the civil Court in all probability shall avoid such comparison, since it is always desirable to make the comparison with naked eyes instead o