Rajinder And Company vs Union Of India

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Appointment of Commission - Inspection of site and measurement of work - Interference by appellate court - Where trial court appoints a Commission to inspect a site and measure work done, and such appointment is innocuous and does not prejudice the right of parties to challenge the report's conclusions, the High Court is not justified in interfering with such an order. (Para 2)

Facts of the case:
The trial court had appointed a Commission to inspect a site, file a report, and measure the work done by the respondent. The High Court interfered with and set aside this portion of the trial court's order. The appellants challenged this interference before the Supreme Court, submitting that the respondent would not be responsible for the costs involved and that the report's acceptability would be decided by the court independently.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court's interference was unnecessary as the appointment of a Commission for measurement and inspection is an innocuous step. The final acceptability of the report is a matter for the court to decide regardless of the order passed by the authority concerned.

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's order for the appointment of a Commission to inspect the site and measure the work done.

Ratio Decidendi: An order by a trial court to appoint a Commission for site inspection and measurement of work should not be interfered with by a higher court if the action is innocuous and the parties retain the right to substantiate their contentions regarding the tenability or untenability of the report and its conclusions.

Result: Impugned order of the High Court set aside and order of the trial court restored.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appointment of commission for site inspection and measuring work done — Challenge to trial court order. (Para 2 )

2. Respondent will not bear commission costs; final acceptability of report to be decided by court. (Para 2 )

3. High Court's interference with innocuous commission appointment order was unnecessary and unwarranted. (Para 2 )

4. A court should not alter an order appointing a commission when the report's final acceptability is for the court to decide. (Para 2 )

5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Trial court order restored with rider. (Para 2 , 3 )

6. When can a higher court interfere with a trial court order appointing a commission for site inspection?

A higher court should not interfere where the commission's appointment is innocuous and the final acceptability of its report is for the court to decide. (Para 2 )

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE cannot appreciate why the High Court had interfered with that part of the order passed by the trial court appointing a Commission for inspecting the site and to file a report and to measure the work done by the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent will not be made responsible for the cost or expenses which may be involved in the Commission to file the report. The question whether the Commissioners report is finally acceptable or not would be decided by the Court dehors the order passed by the authority concerned. In the light of the said innocuous position it was not necessary for the High Court to alter the trial courts order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court in full measure, with the rider that this action will be without prejudice to the right of the parties to substantiate the respective contentions regarding the tenability or untenability of the Commissioners report and its conclusions.

(3) THE appeal is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 746

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
Rajinder And Company
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 2560 of 2000
Date of Decision : 4/10/00

The High Court should not interfere with a trial court's order to appoint a Commission for site inspection and measurement of work if the action is innocuous and does not prejudice the parties' rights to contest the report's findings.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. When can a higher court interfere with a trial court order appointing a commission for site inspection?

Judicial Analysis

2000 Supreme(SC) 746

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAK.T.Thomas : R.P.SethiRajinder And CompanyVersusUnion Of IndiaCase No. : 2560 of 2000Date of Decision : 4/10/00

The High Court should not interfere with a trial court's order to appoint a Commission for site inspection and measurement of work if the action is innocuous and does not prejudice the parties' rights to contest the report's findings.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. When can a higher court interfere with a trial court order appointing a commission for site inspection?

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
Rajinder And Company
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 2560 of 2000
Date of Decision : 4/10/00