The discretion to conduct scientific investigation is vested in the Civil Court only if it is necessary or expedient in the interest of justice, and the investigation should advance the cause of justice and be necessary for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties.

1. This petition filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) is directed against the order dated 20-2-2003 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gidderbaha dismissing the applicant of the defendant-petitioner filed under Order 26, Rule 10-A read with Sec. 151 of the Code. The prayer made in the application was that the disputed pronote and receipt 11-2-1998 be sent to Forensic Science Lab. Govt. of N.C.T., Delhi to find out the age of the ink used on the stamps.

2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of Rs. 5,83,400.00 by propounding a pronote and receipt dated 11-2-1998. The defence taken by the defendant-petitioner is the plaintiff-respondent has manipulated the disputed pronote and receipt in his favour by alleging that it was executed on 11-2-1998. The defendant-petitioner has claimed that he had signed the stamps and had given the figure of Rs. 4,70,000.00 on the blank pronote and receipt to one Shri Sushil Kumar Singla of M/s. Singla Trading Company, Sirsa many years before 11-2-1998. The plaintiff-respondent has also examined one Shri Navdeep Gupta, an expert from Patiala, to prove the signatures of the defendant-petitioner who has stated that the age of the ink used in the signature cannot be determined as he did not possess the instrument of polyview system. He further stated that the age of the ink could be successfully determined on these disputed document by the Forensic Science Lab., Delhi. The defendant-petitioner has also claimed that it would be necessary for just decision of the case that the document be examined from the forensic Science Lab., Delhi with the object of determining the age of the ink. The application was opposed. The Civil Judge dismissed the same by recording the following order :

"The defendant-applicant has filed this application for sending the disputed pronote and receipt dated 11-2-1998 for examining the age of the ink used on the stamps from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT, Delhi. The defendant-applicant has stated that the plaintiff has manipulated the disputed pronote and receipt in his favour alleging it dated 11-2-1998, whereas the defendant has signed the stamps and had given the figure of Rs. 4,70,000.00 on blank pronote and receipt to Sushil Kumar Singla of M/s. Singla Trading Company, Sirsa many years before 11-2-1998. The defendant-applicant has also stated that Navdeep Gupta, Expert examined by the plaintiff stated that he cannot tell the age of the ink used in the signatures and amount on the stamps. On the other hand the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has stated that no science can give the age of ink and moreover if the age of the ink is determined, even then a ink prepared 10 years back can be used after a period of gap of 10 years. So, it cannot be determined when the ink was used on the writing of the pronote and receipt. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by sending the disputed pronote and receipt for the examination of the age of ink used on stamps, from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi. So the application filed by the defendant for examining the age of ink used on the stamp from Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi is dismissed."

3. Shri Rajesh Bhatheja, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Civil Judge suffers from patent illegality because the examination by the Forensic Science Lab. would have vital effect on the result of the case. The learned counsel has pointed out that if the age of the ink is determined then the truth will come out that the defendant-petitioner never appended his signatures on the date recorded by the plaintiff-respondent on the pronote and receipt. According to the learned counsel as the amount involved is very heavy, such an opportunity should not have been declined.

4. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merit