CR No.3411 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No.3411 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.11.2010 Vinod Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Bahadur Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Defendant - petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jagadhari, whereby directing the defendant - petitioner to produce the weapon in question before the District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, who shall get the weapon checked from the competent authority to ensure the manufacturing authority of the weapon in question. In nutshell, facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that the CR No.3411 of 2010 2 plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs.72,000/- against the defendant contending therein that defendant has sold the weapon in question to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.72,000/-. However, after having purchased the weapon in question, plaintiff got the same checked and found it to be fake and duplicate. An application was moved by the plaintiff before the trial Court that the weapon in question be got checked from the appropriate authority to find out as to whether the same is duplicate or is manufactured by the company shown to have manufactured the same. The trial Court has allowed the application vide impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As to whether the weapon in question is duplicate or genuinely manufactured by the company shown to have manufactured the same, is the question, which can not be decided on the basis of evidence. In the opinion of this Court, scientific investigation is required on the question involved in the present petition. Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC reads as under: - “10A. Commission for scientific investigations:- (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 so 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 CR No.3411 of 2010 3 this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under rule 9.” From the perusal of Rule 10-A, this Court is of the opinion that where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation, which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be decided on the basis of evidence, then scientific opinion must be directed to be obtained. As observed hereinabove, the question of duplicacy or the genuineness of the weapon in question ordinarily cannot be decided by the Court on the basis of the evidence and expert opinion is certainly required, hence the trial Court was well within its jurisdiction under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC to direct the Deputy Commissioner to get the weapon in question examined by the scientific expert. No interference is called for. Dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 09.11.2010 sk.