1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4642 OF 2009 Federation of All Maharashtra Petrol Dealers Association ...Petitioner vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents Mr.Nikhil Karnawat i/b Ajit Kulkarni for the petitioner CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 27, 2009 P.C. 1 By the impugned order, the trial court has declined to appoint the court commissioner for local investigation. An application was made for appointment of Court Commissioner for scientific investigation by taking recourse to Rule 10(A) of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint and the reliefs sought therein. He pointed out that an application for temporary injunction made by the petitioner is still pending and for deciding the said application, an opinion of the expert on carrying out scientific investigation will be necessary and such opinion will assist the court for deciding the application for temporary injunction. He submitted that if the scientific investigation will be ordered, there 2 will not be any prejudice to the respondents. He submitted that the appointment of the Court Commissioner under Rule 10-A of Order 26 of the said Code will help the court in adjudicating upon the dispute involved in the suit. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Bapu Dhopndi Devkar Vs. Tukaram Sakharam Nagaonkar 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 401. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. The petitioner is a federation of All Petrol Dealers Associations in Maharashtra. The 1 st to 4 th respondents are the public sector oil companies. The petitioner Association represents the Dealers appointed by the 1 st to 4 th respondents for distribution and sale of petroleum products. The prayers in the suit read thus : (a) that it may kindly be declared that the members of the plaintiff Association are entitled to receive fuel from the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 Oil Companies herein, by adopting Standard Temperature Correction Measure Method; (b) that the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 Oil Companies may kindly be directed to adopt Standard Temperature Correction Measure Method i.e. Correction of fuel volume which is at ambient temperature to the volume, the fuel would occupy at 15 Degrees Celsius, while supplying and invoicing wholesale fuel to their Dealers, who are members of the Plaintiff Federation ; 4 The contention of the petitioner is that petrol expands by heat and contracts after cooling. As a result, of the volume of the petrol increases by heat and the 3 volume decreases after cooling. The contention is that because of such volume variation, temperature correction is necessary when the fuel is actually delivered at the petrol stations of the dealers by the oil companies. His submission is that the said aspects of temperature and volume variation in the petroleum products has to be scientifically established after conducting experiments. His submission is that the appointment of the expert under Rule 10-A Order XXVI of the said Code is necessary for obtaining an opinion on the aforesaid aspects. 5 Apart from the fact that the impugned order is purely an interlocutory order which is capable of being challenged in an appeal against the decree which may be passed in the suit, it is always open for the petitioner to appoint an expert in the field and seek his opinion. The petitioner can produce the opinion of the expert in evidence and examine the expert as a witness. The petitioner is not an ordinary individual and it is a Federation of all Associations of the Petrol Dealers. The petitioner can always appoint its own expert and rely upon his opinion, if necessary, by examining the said expert. The petitioner cannot be allowed to use the Court machinery for this purpose. 6 As of today, the suit is at the stage of hearing the interim application. At the subsequent stage after the 4 parties lead evidence, if the concerned court finds that the scientific investigation is necessary, notwithstanding the impugned order, the concerned court can always order scientific investigation under Rule 10-A of Order XXVI of the said Code. 7 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Reliance is placed on the decision in case of Bapu Dhopndi Devkar (supra). In the case before this court, the dispute was regarding the date, month and year of the revenue stamp. In such a dispute only the concerned officer of the India Security Press can give opinion. Considering this peculiar fact, this court allowed scientific investigation under Rule 10-A of Order XXVI of the said Code. This decision has no relevance in this case and the petitioner can always appoint his own expert in Petroleum Technology and rely upon his opinion. 8 Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. JUDGE