The court affirmed that a second application for scientific investigation was inadmissible after a prior investigation report remained unchallenged, emphasizing adherence to procedural law for commissions in civil matters.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Jauhari learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd Wajid Irfan learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4. None appears on behalf of the respondent nos.5 and 6 despite sufficient service. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the court concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26, Rule 10A C.P.C, for commission for scientific investigation has wrongly and illegally been dismissed as not maintainable, whereas the petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit has a right to file an application. The revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that the application moved for scientific investigation i.e.C-37 was allowed with the consent of the petitioner, on which the report has also been submitted by the Commissioner, and no objection to the same has been filed and after one year, another application was filed only to delay the proceedings of the regular suit filed in the year 2009. The application filed by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed by the trial court filed in Regular Suit no.307 of 2009. The revision has also been dismissed after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

5. The suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 04.05.2006 and permanent injunction has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2009. The validity of the Will dated 03.01.2004 has been questioned by the defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit i.e. the respondent nos.3 and 4 in this petition. An application for commission for scientific investigation, C-37 was moved by the respondent nos.3 and 4, which was allowed with the consent of the parties. In pursuance thereof, a report was submitted by the Commissioner which is Paper no.A-49. In the said report, the difference in the signatures of Ashok Kumar has been found. The petitioner has not filed any objection against the said report. He moved a separate application for rebuttal, which has been dismissed by means of the order dated 18.03.2016 recording a finding that the application has been moved only to delay the proceedings of the case and if the petitioner was aggrieved with the report of the scientific investigation i.e. paper no.A-49, he could have filed objection to the same or revision against the same and dismissed the application. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application has been dismissed as not maintainable is misconceived and not tenable and is liable to be repelled only and accordingly repelled. This Court also does not find any illegality or error in the findings recorded by the trial court.

6. The revisional court also, after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, and considering the material on record by means of the reasoned and speaking order, dismissed the revision vide order dated 07.03.2020 passed in civil revision no.128 of 2016. The relevant findings recorded by the revisional court is extracted here-in-below:-

7. The Commission for scientific investigation can be issued under Rule 10A(1) Order 26 C.P.C. Rule 10A(2) provides that 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 relatio