SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(Bom) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah, J.
Appellants: Biharilal Ramcharan Cotton Mills Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: China Cotton Exporters
Suit No. 411 of 1951Decided On: 17.07.1961
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K.H. Bhabha and Palan, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Pandya, Adv.

A Commissioner for taking accounts is a Court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, and a successor Commissioner can proceed with the reference on the evidence recorded by his predecessor.

Headnote:

COMMISSIONER - APPOINTMENT - POWERS AND DUTIES - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1859 - ORDER 18, RULE 15 - APPLICABILITY - COMMISSIONER DEEMED TO BE A COURT - SUCCESSOR COMMISSIONER CAN PROCEED WITH REFERENCE ON EVIDENCE RECORDED BY PREDECESSOR.

Fact of the Case:

A suit was referred to a Commissioner for taking accounts of a partnership. The Commissioner died before completing the reference. His successor was appointed and the question arose whether the successor Commissioner could proceed with the reference on the evidence recorded by his predecessor.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Commissioner for taking accounts was a Court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, and that the successor Commissioner could proceed with the reference on the evidence recorded by his predecessor.

Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner for taking accounts was a Court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859? 2. Whether the successor Commissioner could proceed with the reference on the evidence recorded by his predecessor?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Commissioner for taking accounts was a Court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, because: a. Rule 17 of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, provided that the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of the provisions of the Code relating to the summoning, attendance and examination of witnesses. b. The Commissioner was appointed under Order 26, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, which was a provision of the Code that the High Court was required to follow under Clause 37 of the Letters Patent. 2. The Court held that the successor Commissioner could proceed with the reference on the evidence recorded by his predecessor because: a. Rule 15 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, provided that where a Judge is prevented by death, transfer or other cause from concluding the trial of a suit, his successor may deal with any evidence or memorandum taken down or made under the foregoing rules as if such evidence or memorandum had been taken down or made by him or under his direction under the said rules and may proceed with the suit from the stage at which his predecessor left it.

Final Decision: The Court held that the successor Commissioner could proceed with the reference on the evidence recorded by his predecessor.

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 contemplate and specifically provide for the appointment of any Commissioner for taking accounts or otherwise as such Clause 8 of the Letters Patent which provides for the appointment of officers of the Court runs as follows:--

"And We do hereby authorise and empower the Chief Justice of the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, from lime to time, as occasion may require, and subject to any rules and restrictions which may be prescribed by the Governor General in Council, to appoint so many and such clerks and other ministerial officers as shall be found necessary for the administration of justice, and the due execution of all the powers and authorities granted and committed to the said High Court by these Our Letters Patent. ...."

This clause clearly refers to the appointment of officers charged only with ministerial duties to help in the administration of justice by the High Court. The Commissioner appointed by this Court from time to time is obviously on of such officers appointed under this clause of the Letters Patent and as such officer he would have no Judicial powers of any kind whatever.

4. Then, clause 37 of the Letters Patent under the heading "Civil Procedure" provides as follows:--

"And We do further ordain that it shall be lawful for the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, from time to time, to make rules and orders for the purpose of regulating all proceedings in civil cases which may be brought before the said High Court, including proceedings in its Admiralty, Vice-Admiralty, Testamentary, Intestate and Matrimonial Jurisdictions, respectively: Provided always that the said High Court shall be guided in making sucn rules and orders as far as possible, by the provisions or the Code of Civil Procedure, being an Act passed by the Governor-General in Council, and being Act No. VIII of 1859 and the provisions of any law which has been made amending or altering the same, by competent legislative authority for India".

By virtue of this clause, it will appear, the High Court is entitled to make rules and orders for that purpose of regulating all proceedings in civil cases which may be brought before it under several of its jurisdictions. The clause, however, provides that in making such rules and orders, the High Court shall be guided, as far as possible, by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Now, Order 26, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides (or the issue of a commission to such person as the Court things fit directing him to examine or adjust accounts in any suit in which an examination or adjustment of accounts is necessary. My attention was not drawn to any rule made by the High Court on its Original Side which contemplates the issue of such commission or the appointment of a commiss













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top