Judgment :- 1. This Application is filed under Order 14 Rule 8 of Original Side Rules, Order 26, Rule 9 and Ss. 75 and 151 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. 2. In the affidavit of the applicant, it is stated that he has filed the suit for recovery of amount from the defendant, that certain signatures and writings of the defendant in some documents have been denied by the defendant, for which he filed Application No. 3251 of 1992 for examination of those disputed documents by a hand-writing expert attached to the Forensic Department, Madras, that this Court also was pleased to allow the Application with the direction to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the hand-writing expert for the examination of the documents, that when the hand-writing expert was to examine the documents, he represented through his letters addressed to this Court that it would not be possible to bring the equipments from the laboratory to examine the documents in Court but it would be possible to examine the documents in the laboratory where all the facilities and equipments are available and therefore, for the purpose of examination of the disputed documents in the laboratory of the hand-writing expert, an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to entrust the documents with him to hand over the same to the hand-writing expert and also to bring back the documents, so that the documents would be safe in the custody of the Advocate Commissioner 3. The defendant/respondent has filed counter opposing this Application, on the following grounds: The Application of the applicant in A. 3251 of 1991 was heard in full and a complete and compact order the been passed, which has become binding on both sides and against the spirit of that order, the documents cannot be taken outside the Court. The respondent believed that the hand-writing expert had sent copies of the letter addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Original Side), to the advocate of the applicant showing that the applicants counsel has been corresponding with the then Director, Forensic Department, Madras, that the order of this Court dated 31.7.1992 cannot be changed by sending the documents outside the Court premises as this Court has emphasised that the documents can be examined only in the presence of an Officer of this Court and the present Application is diametrically opposed to the tenor of the decisions and findings of this Court. Once the custody of the documents is lost, anything may happen to the documents when taken out and his apprehension is well founded. The previous Application No. 3251 of 1992 was filed in the belated stage and it was represented that this Application would not be pressed by the plaintiff and after the cross examination on 9.3.94, this Application has been filed. This Application is belated and has to be dismissed. 4. The point for consideration is whether an Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed for entrusting the suit documents to the hand-writing expert attached to the Forensic Department for the purpose of examination of the disputed documents. 5. Point: As certain documents alleged to have been signed by the defendant, were 5isputed by the defendant about the genuineness of the signatures in those documents, the plaintiff/applicant filed Application No. 3251/92 for the examination of these disputed documents by the hand-writing expert, Forensic Department, which is a wing of the Tamil Nadu Government. This Application was contested by the defendant and Pratap Singh, J. after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in T.A. Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar (I.L.R.(1968) 1 Madras 805), though allowed the Application for examination of these documents by the hand-writing expert, directed that the hand-writing expert has to inspect the documents in the Court premises in the presence of the Deputy Registrar (Original Side). As certain apprehensions have been expressed in the decision Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar in allowing the documents to go out of the custody of the Court, my learned brother, Pratap Singh, J. had permitted for the examination of the disputed documents by the hand-writing expert in the presence of the Deputy Registrar (Original Side). But, when the Assistant Registrar (Original Side) addressed the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, Madras for the examination of the disputed documents in the Court premises, the Assistant Director had sent the reply stating that the examination of the documents in the Court premises is not possible as the disputed documents have to be examined only in the laboratory. I am able to see that the two letters, addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Original Side), by one K. Ramakrishnan, Assistant Director on 10.8.1992, and another letter from Prof. P. Chandrasekaran, Director or Forensic Science Department, dated 17.8.1992 expressing their inability to examine the documents in the Court premises. I am able to see that the two letters, addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Original Side), by one K. Ramakrishnan, Assistant Director on 10.8.1992, and another letter from Prof. P. Chandrasekaran, Director or Forensic Science Department, dated 17.8.1992 expressing their inability to examine the documents in the Court premises. In the letter of the Director of Forensic Science Department, he has expressed that only in the laboratory, the facilities for photography and lighting arrangements are available for the use of different sophisticated immovable instruments for examination of the disputed documents and as these facilities are not available in the Court, the scientific study of the disputed documents is not possible outside the laboratory and therefore he was not ready to accept the request to examine the documents in the Court premises. These letters of the Forensic Department has caused the delay in examining the disputed documents by the hand-writing expert. As the Director of the Forensic Science Department has informed the Assistant Registrar of this Court, their inability to examine the documents in the Court premises, where the light arrangements and sophisticated immovable machineries are not available, now there is no possibility for the examination of these disputed documents within the Court premises itself before an Officer of this Court. No doubt, some private experts may offer to come to this Court to examine the documents as represented by Mr. Venkatachalapathy, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. But, the plaintiff/applicant does not want these documents to be examined through private experts and he wants the examination to be done only by the Forensic Science Department of the Tamil Nadu Government. In view of the difficulty expressed by the experts in examining the documents without proper machinery, the experts attached to the Forensic Department, cannot be forced to come to the Court by taking any coercive steps against them. Therefore, the next way to solve this problem was thought of and the plaintiff applicant has come forward with this Application to entrust his documents with a Commissioner, who is an Officer of the Court, for the examination of the documents by the hand-writing expert in the laboratory of the Forensic Science Department. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Venkatachalapathy contended before me that when the order passed by this Court in Application No. 3252 of 1992 is for the examination of the documents by the hand-writing expert only in the premises of the Court and that order has become final, the present Application to send the documents outside the Court through the Commissioner is contra to the direction of this Court in the previous order and therefore, this Application is not at all maintainable. 7. Accepting the request of the plaintiff for the examination of the disputed documents by the hand-writing expert, attached to the Forensic Science Department, the previous order was passed in Application No. 3251/92 as this Court felt that the truth can be found out by examining the documents by an expert. But, now, the expert has refused to examine this documents in the Court premises for the reason that without the necessary equipments, which are available only in the laboratory of the Forensic Department, the disputed documents cannot be examined. Therefore, the very purpose for which the order was passed in Application No. 3251/92 could not be achieved due to this problem expressed by the expert. 8. While allowing the Application No. 3251/92 for the examination of the disputed documents by an expert, this Court followed the view expressed by Ramamurti, J. in T.A. Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar not to loose the custody of the documents, by sending the documents outside the Court. In that reported case, the defendant wanted to send the documents to the private experts, either Dixit or Mahajan, whereas the plaintiff preferred to send the documents to another private expert by name Bhanagay. Those experts were residing outside Tamil Nadu and therefore, the documents had to be sent to those private experts by post and there was risk of losing the original documents during transit also. Therefore, Ramamurti, J. observed in that case that under no circumstances, should a Court permit or allow the documents to go out of its custody as such act is attendant with various risks, which are too obvious to be mentioned. Bearing this view in mind, Pratap Singh J. while allowing Application No. 3251/92, gave direction to inspect the documents in the Court premises in the presence of the Deputy Registrar (Original Side). Bearing this view in mind, Pratap Singh J. while allowing Application No. 3251/92, gave direction to inspect the documents in the Court premises in the presence of the Deputy Registrar (Original Side). When the view of the learned judge expressed in T.A. Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar is followed, his view in full has to be taken into consideration. The learned judge, Ramamurti, J. has also observed in the same decision about the Commissioners and Receivers, who are having access to the Court documents. In the view of the learned judge, by his own expression, in the cases of enquiries by Commissioners or proceedings by receivers, who are officers of Court, they are permitted to have access to documents as they are under the direct control, supervision and jurisdiction of the courts, which bind them and there is thus ample safeguard when original documents are taken by the Commissioners or the Receivers. So, the learned judge has accepted that the documents entrusted with the Commissioners and Receivers are exceptions to the view expressed by him because they are officers to the Court, who are under the direct control and supervision of the courts. Hence, in the view of the learned judge, there need not be any apprehension to hand over the Court records to the Commissioners. It is only in view of this expression in the above decision, now the plaintiff-applicant has filed this Application to appoint a Commissioner to entrust the disputed records with him for the purpose of examining all these documents by the expert. Even though the learned counsel Mr. Venkatachalapathy repeatedly stated that there are risks in sending the documents outside the Court premises on the basis of the view expressed in T.A. Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar , the learned counsel has failed to note the observation about the Commissioners and Receivers, who are officers of the Court. Therefore, even according to the decision relied upon by Mr. Venkatachalapathy, the documents can be entrusted with the advocates and Commissioners as they are under the direct control of the Court. 9. When the very object of examining the disputed documents within the Court premises is not possible due to the genuine difficulties expressed by the expert, certainly the Court has to find out the alternate way for achieving the object for the purpose of doing justice. 9. When the very object of examining the disputed documents within the Court premises is not possible due to the genuine difficulties expressed by the expert, certainly the Court has to find out the alternate way for achieving the object for the purpose of doing justice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the request of the plaintiff/applicant in this Application, if allowed, will defeat the object of the order passed in Application No. 3251/92. 10. The learned counsel, Mr. Venkatachalapathy submitted that this Application for the appointment of the Commissioner falls within the ambit of Order 26 which deals with the appointment of the Commissioner for the purpose of examining a witness, to make local investigation, to examine the accounts, to make partition to hold scientific and technical investigation and to perform any ministerial act. But there is no rule specifically to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of transmission of a record from one end to the other end and therefore the Commissioner cannot be appointed to act as an errand. He further contends that when Order 26 is specifically provided for the appointment of the Commissioners, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 C.P.C. and therefore this Section cannot be invoked in this case. There is inconsistency in this argument of the learned counsel. It is true that if there is a special provision for a particular relief, that alone can be invoked for that particular relief and the general provision will not be applicable. If the prayer of the applicant falls within the scope of Order 26, certainly the applicant is not entitled to invoke Section 151 C.P.C. But when it is the stand of the learned counsel for the defendant that there is no specific Rule under Order 26 to satisfy the prayer of the applicant, naturally the applicant is entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 151 C.P.C. No doubt, under Order 26, there is no specific Rule to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of transmission of the records. But in this case, the Commissioner sought for cannot be to act as an errand but to report the Court, as to the investigations of the documents in his presence. Under Order 26, Rule 1, the Commissioner can be appointed to examine the witnesses. But in this case, the Commissioner sought for cannot be to act as an errand but to report the Court, as to the investigations of the documents in his presence. Under Order 26, Rule 1, the Commissioner can be appointed to examine the witnesses. Examining a witness is the counsels on both sides putting questions to the witness to testify his version in the presence of the Commissioner. Similarly, in this case, instead of a witness, a document has to be examined in the presence of the Commissioner who is an officer of the Court. No doubt, the Commissioner is not going to do anything physically during the examination of the disputed documents. But it is being done by the expert in the presence of the Commissioner, like the advocates examining the witness in the presence of the Commissioner. Even though in the Application the prayer is to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take the exhibits listed in the Judges Summons, to the Director of the Forensic Department to enable the latter to take photographs of the said documents in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner, really it is meant for examining the documents in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner. Mere taking photograph of the documents by the expert is only a part of the investigation but the entire investigation like examining the original documents, either through the magnifying lenses or different lights, shall also be done in the presence of the Commissioner himself. Therefore this Application has to be treated as an Application for the appointment of the Commissioner in whose presence the examination of the disputed documents has to be conducted by the expert. Under Order 26 Rule 10-A, C.P.C., when scientific investigation, which cannot be conducted before the Court, has to be done elsewhere outside the Court, a Commissioner can be appointed, for this purpose, from such a person, who is capable of doing that investigation. Similarly, under Rule 10(B) for the purpose of any ministerial act, which cannot be conveniently done before the Court, a Commissioner can be appointed for that purpose. In this case, the scientific investigation has to be conducted over the disputed documents to find out the genuineness of the signatures. Similarly, under Rule 10(B) for the purpose of any ministerial act, which cannot be conveniently done before the Court, a Commissioner can be appointed for that purpose. In this case, the scientific investigation has to be conducted over the disputed documents to find out the genuineness of the signatures. As this investigation cannot be conveniently conducted within the premises of the Court, but has to be carried out in the laboratory of the Forensic Science Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. It has become necessary to appoint a Commissioner to conduct the examination of the documents in his presence. As the applicant requests this Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to carry out this investigation by taking photograph of the disputed documents in the presence of the Commissioner, I feel that a Commissioner can be appointed in the presence of whom, the entire investigation of the documents has to be carried out. The Court is interested in gathering all the important evidence for the investigation of the truth, for rendering justice. In this case, it has become necessary to apply the scientific knowledge through the hand-writing expert to detect the genuineness of the documents in dispute, for which the documents have to be, necessarily, taken out for conducting the scientific investigation. As this Court has taken the view in T.A. Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar that the custody of the Court records with the Commissioners and Receivers will be safe as they are under the direct control and jurisdiction of the Court, certainly the plaintiff/applicant is entitled to invoke the inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C. for the appointment of a Commissioner to conduct the investigation in his presence in the laboratory of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department. As the investigation has to be conducted in his presence, the disputed documents can be handed over to him for being produced before the expert for the investigation, subject to the conditions, which I am going to emphasize below, to ensure the safety of the original documents, Therefore, this Application has to be allowed. 11. In the result, Thiru B. Namasivayam, is appointed as Commissioner, in whose presence, the disputed documents have to be examined by the hand-writing expert, deputed by the Director of the Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Madras-4. Rs. 2,000/- is fixed towards the remuneration of the Commissioner payable to him direct by the plaintiff/applicant. 11. In the result, Thiru B. Namasivayam, is appointed as Commissioner, in whose presence, the disputed documents have to be examined by the hand-writing expert, deputed by the Director of the Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Madras-4. Rs. 2,000/- is fixed towards the remuneration of the Commissioner payable to him direct by the plaintiff/applicant. The documents can be handed over to the Commissioner for production before the expert for the investigation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The disputed original documents, sought to be examined, shall be photocopied before the Second Assistant Registrar (Original Side) before handing over the same to the Commissioner. These photocopies will be signed by the Second Assistant Registrar and will be retained in the Court along with the case papers. 2. The Commissioner shall address the Director of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Madras, to fix a date and time for the examination of the documents in his presence, as per the orders of this Court, and after fixing the time, he shall receive the Court records either on the same day or one day in advance, from the Court. 3. A list will be prepared for the original disputed documents and the documents given for comparison to be delivered to the Commissioner and the same shall be signed by the Advocate Commissioner. 4. The disputed original documents and the documents given for comparison with the sample signatures or hand-writings, will be enclosed in two separate envelopes and sealed in the presence of the Commissioner, who has to acknowledge the contents of the envelopes and also the receipt of the same. These two sealed covers and the letter of requisition of the Second Assistant Registrar (Original Side) with a sample seal, shall be enclosed in another cover, which will also be sealed in the presence of the Commissioner, to whom this cover will be delivered by the Second Assistant Registrar (Original Side). 5. The Commissioner shall deliver this envelope to the Director, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Madras, and be present in the place of investigation of this documents throughout to ensure that the examination of the documents, including the photocopying, was done in his presence. 5. The Commissioner shall deliver this envelope to the Director, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Madras, and be present in the place of investigation of this documents throughout to ensure that the examination of the documents, including the photocopying, was done in his presence. After the examination of the documents is over, the office of the Director, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, shall enclose the documents in a sealed cover with their covering letter and hand over to the Commissioner, who has to return all the documents received by him to the second Assistant Registrar (Original Side). 6. The Director, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, shall send his report after the investigation, recording his opinion, in a sealed cover, direct to the Second Assistant Registrar (Original Side) of this Court. As fixed originally, the Director, Tamil Nadu Science Department, is entitled to Rs. 1,000/- towards his remuneration. 12. In the result, subject to the above conditions to be followed, this Application is allowed.