JUDGMENT - 1. The question that is raised on his summons is as to whether the Commissioner appointed by this Court to whom a partnership suit is referred for the purpose to taking accounts cf the partnership is a Court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, so that where such Commissioner is prevented by death, transfer or other cause from concluding the reference, his successor may deal with the evidence recorded by the former as if it had been recorded by himself and proceed with the reference from the stage at which his predecessor had left it under the provisions of Rule 15 of Order 18 of the Code,

2. It was contended by Mr. Pandya, the learned counsel for the defendants, that the office of the Commissioner was a part of this High Court and that inasmuch as by virtue of the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 49 of the Code, some of the Rules of Order 18 including Rule 15 did not apply to the Chartered High Courts in exercise of their Ordinary or extra-ordinary original civil Jurisdiction, those Rules would not also apply to the Commissioner to whom a partnership suit was referred for taking accounts of that partnership.

3. Now, the Letters Patent of this Court do not conte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document