Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively reviewed past cases to discern the applicability and interpretation of Rule 10 of Order 26 of the CPC concerning the appointment of multiple experts:

• Ambi v. Kunhikavamma (AIR 1929 Mad 661): Highlighted the inefficiency and expense of multiple commissions covering the same ground, condemning such practices as contrary to the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Shib Charan Sahu v. Sarada Prasad (AIR 1937 Pat 670): The Patna High Court rejected the notion that a second commissioner's report could render the first report non-est, emphasizing that both reports should be considered as separate pieces of evidence.
• B.C. Ghose v. T.P. Ghose ((1966) 70 Cal WN 266): Affirmed that commission reports are pieces of evidence and cannot be dismissed outright, supporting the view that multiple expert opinions can coexist.
• Narayana Kekunnaya v. Derinjathaya (1961 Ker LT 960): Allowed the appointment of a second handwriting expert without setting aside the first report.
• Madhavan Nair v. Madhavan Nair, Coragan v. Koran (1978): Further supported the acceptance of multiple expert reports without invalidating prior ones.

These precedents collectively influenced the court's decision to allow the appointment of a second handwriting expert, recognizing the absence of a rigid prohibition in the Civil Procedure Code against such practices.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the relevant legal provisions to arrive at its decision:

• Sections 45 & 46 of the Evidence Act: These sections govern the relevancy and admissibility of expert opinions, focusing on their role in identifying handwriting. The court clarified that these provisions pertain to the relevance of expert testimony and do not limit the number of experts that can be consulted.
• Order 26, Rule 10 of the CPC: This rule allows courts discretion to issue further inquiries if dissatisfied with a commissioner's proceedings. The court interpreted "proceedings" to refer to the investigative process rather than the final report, thereby not restricting the appointment of subsequent experts.
• Order 26, Rule 10-A: Introduced to provide flexibility for scientific investigations, Rule 10-A extends the applicability of Rule 10 to scientific experts, acknowledging the need for multiple opinions in complex cases.

The court concluded that while previous cases under Rule 9 did not explicitly permit multiple commissions, the introduction of Rule 10-A and the absence of any explicit prohibition allowed for such discretionary appointments. The court emphasized that the powers to appoint multiple experts are not exhausted by the first appointment and that using discretion to appoint additional experts can be justified, especially when initial findings are inconclusive or contradictory.

Impact

The judgment in Hydru v. Govindankutty Nair has significant implications for future civil litigation involving expert evidence:

• Enhanced Judicial Flexibility: Courts are empowered to consider multiple expert opinions without being constrained by initial findings, ensuring a more thorough and fair examination of evidence.
• Cost Implications: By allowing multiple expert opinions, the court acknowledges the increased costs associated with such practices, which may affect how parties approach litigation strategy and resource allocation.
• Consistency in Expert Testimony: The precedent supports the use of divergent expert opinions to resolve complex factual disputes, potentially leading to more balanced and informed judicial decisions.
• Clarification of Procedural Rules: This judgment clarifies ambiguities in the Civil Procedure Code regarding the appointment of multiple experts, providing a clearer framework for courts to follow.