TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in permitting scientific examination of the disputed Will under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether such examination could be directed with suitable precautions despite the objection that the age of ink could not be ascertained.
Analysis: Order XXVI Rule 10A confers discretion on the court to direct scientific examination of a document where it is relevant to the dispute. The disputed Will was central to the controversy, and although it had been laminated, the examination was to be undertaken without removing the lamination and in the presence of the parties or their representatives. The Court held that adequate precautions protected the document from tampering or damage, and that the utility and reliability of the expert's report, including whether the age of ink could be determined, were matters to be considered after the report was received. The parties' contentions were left open for evaluation by the trial court under Order XXVI Rule 10-A(2).
Conclusion: The permission for scientific examination was upheld and no interference was called for; the petitioners' challenge failed, while objections to the expert's report were kept open before the trial court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
