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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 3355

2011 (2) MWN(Civil) 841
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
M/s. Vestas RRB (India) Limited rep. by its President S.D. Singh
Versus
Anulatha
C.R.P.No.2317 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 22-07-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Bharathkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B. Chandrasekaran for M/s. R. Subramanian & Associates, Advocates.

The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is discretionary and aimed at obtaining evidence that can only be had on the spot.

Headnote:

Commissioner - Civil Procedure Code - Order 26 Rule 9 - The court discussed the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, the purpose of the report, and the limitations on appointing a second Commissioner for the same purpose. The court emphasized that the report of the Commissioner is part of the case record, not binding on the court, and should be utilized as an aid to the trial court. It also highlighted that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is discretionary and aimed at obtaining evidence that can only be had on the spot.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition against the order of the trial Court, which allowed the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to investigate the suit property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the subsequent prayer for the appointment of the same Advocate Commissioner to investigate the suit property was premature and otiose, as the stage had not been set for examining the Commissioner's report.

Issues: The main issue was the propriety of appointing a second Advocate Commissioner to investigate the suit property, and the premature nature of the prayer for such appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is discretionary and should aim to obtain evidence that can only be had on the spot. It emphasized that the report of the Commissioner is part of the case record, not binding on the court, and should be utilized as an aid to the trial court.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the trial Court's order, and leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The dismissal of the Revision did not preclude the Respondent/Plaintiff from moving an Interlocutory Application at the appropriate point of time.

JUDGMENT :-

1. The Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 06.07.2009 in I.A.No.335 of 2007 in O.S.No.37 of 2006 on the file of Learned Sub Judge, Poonamallee.

2. The Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.335 of 2007 as per Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code praying for issuance of an order in remitting back the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner Mr.B.Thiyagarajan to revisit the suit property, to investigate and submit a detailed report with the help of Taluk Surveyor as to whether the suit property is enclosed by the compound wall of the Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant/Factory or not etc.

3. The trial Court, while passing order in I.A.No.335 of 2007 in O.S.No.37 of 2006, dated 06.07.2009, has among other things observed that 'the original suit has been filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for the relief of declaration and injunction and further that in appointing the Advocate Commissioner and requiring him to file a Report and Plan to find out as to whether the compound wall in the suit property is situated within the suit boundary would not create any legal impediment and resultantly, allowed the application in the interest of justice.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defendant submits that an Advocate Commissioner has already submitted his report in I.A.No.261 of 2006 in O.S.No.37 of 2006 and in the said report, the Commissioner has observed as follows:

“On the western side of the defendant's extention property, there is a compound wall ending at part on the north, which is denoted as 'A' in the rough sketch. From part 'A' I had measured towards east to a length of 164 feet it ends as part 'B'. From part 'B' I measured up to the length of 94 feet which is part 'C'. The BCD is the suit property.

The suit property is vacant land surrounded on the north by: Metro Water land, south by: Defendant's land east by: Defendant's land on the west by Metro Water land. There is a big compound wall from part B to C. From part B to E there is a brick compound wall raised up to 3 feet height and from part E to C the compound wall raised up to 5 feet height. Bricks and cement bags are seen in the suit property. From part 'A' to 'B' constructed foundation with rubble stones. Such are the physical features of the suit property.”

Therefore, when the Advocate Commissioner has noted down the physical features of the suit property for the second time the very same Commissioner need not be appointed to investigate and to report whether the compound wall of the suit property is situated within the suit property or otherwise.

5. As per Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, a Court of Law is empowered to issue a commission during the pendency of the suit to conduct investigation and submit a report elucidating any matter in dispute or to ascertain the spot fact situation.

6. In Law the report of the Commissioner is part of case record. The examination of Commissioner is essential when either party disputes the veracity of the report.

7. Generally, an issuance of second commission for a roving enquiry at the fag end of the completion of the suit is to be refused.

8. Evidence of the Commissioner is not binding on a Court of Law. Also, the report of the Commissioner is to be utilized as an aid to the trial Court in arriving at the conclusions.

9. Unless a Court of Law has recorded its finding that the report of earlier Commissioner is unsatisfactory, the second Commissioner for the same purpose cannot be appointed.

10. Where the Commissioner appointed in the case has furnished a detailed report, without considering the same, the Court will not appoint another Commissioner.

11. The object of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of local inspection/investigation is not aimed to collect evidence, but to obtain evidence.

12. Where the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction instead of submitting a factual report, records findings, th





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
whatsapp-icon Back to top