Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 700
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. SUGUNA, J.
The Rasipuram Benefit Fund Limited, by its Managing Director
Versus
G. Padmavathi & Others
C.R.P.(PD) No. 524 of 2012 & M.P. No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 09-02-2012
For the Petitioner:P. Valliappan, Advocate.
The Court has the discretion to decide where to send documents for expert opinion, and the petitioner's choice of expert cannot compel the Court to send the documents only to the particular expert.
Headnote:
Expert Opinion - Choice of Expert - Section 45 of the Evidence Act - R. Elango v. K. Dhanasekaran (2008) - Jabalpur Bus Operators’ Association v. State of M.P. (2003) - State of Bihar v. Ralika Kuer and Kalika Singh (2003)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to send certain receipts for expert opinion, but the Trial Court directed the documents to be sent to a Government Expert Organisation instead of the private expert specified by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's choice of expert cannot compel the Court to send the documents only to the particular expert. The Court has the discretion to decide whether to send the documents to the Government Expert Organisation or to the private agency of the petitioner's choice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court's decision to send the documents to a Government Expert Organisation instead of the private expert specified by the petitioner was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that while the petitioner has the option to specify the expert for opinion, the Court has the power to decide where to send the documents. The Court's discretion in this matter cannot be curtailed.
Final Decision: The Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court's order and disposed of the Civil Revision Petition with a direction for the Trial Court to follow the practice adopted in sending the documents to the Government Expert Organisation.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order dated 21.11.2011 passed in I.A. No.523 of 2011 in O.S. No.49 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal.
2. The above said Suit was filed by the Petitioner herein with the following prayer:
i. to pass a preliminary decree against the mortgage properties, now, in the hands of L.R’s of deceased K. Velappa Gounder namely Defendants 1 to 3, directing the Defendants 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.19,09,205.00 with further and future interest for the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at rate of 24% from the date of filing of this Suit till recovery in full and cost of the Suit;
ii. to direct the Defendants to pay the amount mentioned from the “B” schedule properties in the hands of Defendants within a date fixed y the Hon’ble Court; and
iii. in default of payment to direct the sale of mortgage properties described in Schedule B of this Plaint in the hands of Defendants 1 to 3 and apply the sale proceeds to the amount due to the Plaintiff’s Finance Company towards the Suit claim.
3. In the said Suit, the Petitioner had filed I.A.No.523 of 2011 seeking to send certain receipts for expert opinion. The Trial Court, by order dated 21-11-2011, has allowed the said Interlocutory Application.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner with regard to the above said order passed by the Trial Court is that as per the said order, the documents which the Petitioner wants to send for expert opinion, have been directed to be sent to the Government Expert Organisation, but, as per the Affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application, the Petitioner had sought a prayer to send those documents to one T.V. Jayadevi, Handwriting Expert, Forensic Lab, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10.
5. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, when as per the prayer sought in the said Interlocutory Application, those documents have to be sent to a particular Private Handwriting Expert, sending the same to the Government Expert Organisation is prima facie illegal and hence, on this ground, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.
6. Relying on the judgment in R. Elango v. K. Dhanasekaran and others, 2008 (8) MLJ 299, the stand of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the choice of sending a particular document to a particular expert in with the person who files that Petition and according to him, even as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act also, no difference or distinction between a Government Organisation and Private Expert bodies has been made; as such, as per the above said judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court and also as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act, for seeking expert opinion, the documents have to be sent only to T.V. Jayadevi, Handwriting Expert, Forensic Lab, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10, to whom the Petitioner wants the documents to be sent. Besides, according to him, no prejudice will also be caused if the documents are sent to the private agency and in number of cases, only the private agencies are giving expert opinion.
7. According to the learned Counsel, the Trial Court has rejected the Interlocutory Application on the ground that if the documents are sent to a private individual, evidence will be created; but, the said reasoning of the Trial Court is prima facie illegal. Based on these submissions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought setting aside of the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Trial Court in I.A. NO.523 of 2011 in O.S. NO.49 of 2011.
8. This, Court is not inclined to accept any of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Even as per paragraph No.8 of the above said judgment in R. Elango v. K. Dhanasekaran and others, 2008 (8) MLJ 299, relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to fortify his stand that the said documents have to be sent only to the private agency of the petitioner’s choice and not to the Government Export Organisation the words used therein are as follo
