Commission for scientific investigation O26 R10A

The detailed provisions for issuing commands under Section 75 of CPC are set forth in Order 26 Rule-10A of CPC [1] which are as under;

"Rule 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 as 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."

 

Commentaries:

A perusal of the rule shows that a discretion has been vested in the Civil Court to get any scientific investigation (Section 75 Clause (e)) conducted only if it needs necessary or expedient in the ends of justice. The basic rationale of this provision is that the Commission is going to held in extracting the truth. There is established procedure known to law that the Commissioner's report form part of the record and the same becomes evidence as a whole in the suit.[1]

It is not safe for a Court to act as an expert and to overrule the elaborate report of a Commissioner whose integrity and carefulness is unquestionable whose careful and laborious execution of task was proved by his report and who had not blankly adopted the assertions of either party.[1] 

Report of a commission appointed by the Court is entitled to be accepted in its entirety as an evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 

An order passed in the incidental proceedings will have a direct bearing on the result of the suit. [1]

Commissioner whose integrity is unquestionable his elaborate report cannot be overruled by the Court. [1] [2]

A document can be sent to the experts for examination and opinion about the date of printing and the period when it was circulated.[1][3]

Authorities:

[1] The Sunni Central Board Of Waqfs ... vs Gopal Singh Visharad [Allahabad High Court]

[2] AIR 1924 Cal.620, Amrita Sundari Versus Munshi

[3] In 2006 (4) Bom LR 336 Bapu Dhopndi Devkar v. S. Najaokar