The court can appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of entrusting the disputed documents to the handwriting expert attached to the Forensic Department for the examination of the disputed documents. The inherent powers of the court under Section 151, C.P.C. can be invoked for the appointment of a Commissioner to conduct the investigation in the presence of the Commissioner in the laboratory of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department.

1. This Application is filed under Order 14 Rule 8 of Original Side Rules, Order 26, Rule 9 and Ss. 75 and 151 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

2. In the affidavit of the applicant, it is stated that he has filed the suit for recovery of amount from the defendant, that certain signatures and writings of the defendant in some documents have been denied by the defendant, for which he filed Application No. 3251 of 1992 for examination of those disputed documents by a hand-writing expert attached to the Forensic Department, Madras, that this Court also was pleased to allow the Application with the direction to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the hand-writing expert for the examination of the documents, that when the hand-writing expert was to examine the documents, he represented through his letters addressed to this Court that it would not be possible to bring the equipments from the laboratory to examine the documents in Court but it would be possible to examine the documents in the laboratory where all the facilities and equipments are available and therefore, for the purpose of examination of the disputed documents in the laboratory of the hand-writing expert, an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to entrust the documents with him to hand over the same to the hand-writing expert and also to bring back the documents, so that the documents would be safe in the custody of the Advocate Commissioner

3. The defendant/respondent has filed counter opposing this Application, on the following grounds:

The Application of the applicant in A. 3251 of 1991 was heard in full and a complete and compact order the been passed, which has become binding on both sides and against the spirit of that order, the documents cannot be taken outside the Court. The respondent believed that the hand-writing expert had sent copies of the letter addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Original Side), to the advocate of the applicant showing that the applicants counsel has been corresponding with the then Director, Forensic Department, Madras, that the order of this Court dated 31.7.1992 cannot be changed by sending the documents outside the Court premises as this Court has emphasised that the documents can be examined only in the presence of an Officer of this Court and the present Application is diametrically opposed to the tenor of the decisions and findings of this Court. Once the custody of the documents is lost, anything may happen to the documents when taken out and his apprehension is well founded. The previous Application No. 3251 of 1992 was filed in the belated stage and it was represented that this Application would not be pressed by the plaintiff and after the cross examination on 9.3.94, this Application has been filed. This Application is belated and has to be dismissed.

4. The point for consideration is whether an Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed for entrusting the suit documents to the hand-writing expert attached to the Forensic Department for the purpose of examination of the disputed documents.

5. Point: As certain documents alleged to have been signed by the defendant, were 5isputed by the defendant about the genuineness of the signatures in those documents, the plaintiff/applicant filed Application No. 3251/92 for the examination of these disputed documents by the hand-writing expert, Forensic Department, which is a wing of the Tamil Nadu Government. This Application was contested by the defendant and Pratap Singh, J. after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in T.A. Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar (I.L.R.(1968) 1 Madras 805), though allowed the Application for examination of these documents by the hand-writing expert, directed that the hand-writing expert has to inspect the documents in the Court premises in the presence of the Deputy Registrar (Original Side). As certain apprehensions have been expressed in the decision Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar in allowing the documents to go out of the custod