Two points have been argued by Mr. Bhimasankaram for the petitioners and the first of them is that the Commissioner appointed by the Court to divide the properties by metes and bounds in a partition suit where a preliminary decree has been passed is not a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. What happened here is that after the passing of a preliminary decree for partition, the District Munsiff appointed a Commissioner under Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, to go to the spot, identify the properties, divide them, demarcate the boundaries and report to the Court. While the Commissioner with the assistance of people whom he had taken was measuring the lands the petitioners objected to it and used force by dragging the chain by which the lands were being measured. Petitioners I to 5 obstructed on the first day and at their instigation petitioners 6 to 10 did it on the next day. For this act they were charge-sheeted under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and found guilty by both the lower Courts.

The argument of Mr. Bhimasankaram is that since the Commissioner is not a public servant any obstruction to the work done by him cannot be t