Legal Analysis on the Validity of a Commissioner''s Report Without Examination

Introduction

The question at hand concerns the validity of a Commissioner''s report in the absence of the Commissioner''s examination and whether such a report can be considered as evidence in court.

Key Legal Principles

1. Nature of the Commissioner''s Report

• A Commissioner''s report is considered evidence in a suit but is not conclusive. It can be challenged or supplemented by other evidence from the parties involved INDRAMANI BEHERA VS GHANASHYAM BEHERA - Orissa (1986).
• According to Order 26 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall form part of the record and can be acted upon even if not formally marked as an exhibit NEW MULTAN TIMBER STORE VS RATTAN CHAND SOOD (DECD. ) - Delhi (1997).

2. Non-Examination of the Commissioner

• The non-examination of the Commissioner does not invalidate the report. The parties have the opportunity to request the examination of the Commissioner, and if they choose not to do so, they cannot later argue that the report should not be considered NEW MULTAN TIMBER STORE VS RATTAN CHAND SOOD (DECD. ) - Delhi (1997).
• Courts have held that unless a party raises objections or requests the examination of the Commissioner, they cannot later claim that the report is defective or should not be relied upon Arjuna Mahapatro VS Dayanidhi Bhainipati - Madras (1926).

3. Discretion of the Court

• The court has discretion to allow or disallow the examination of the Commissioner based on the circumstances of the case. If there are no reasonable grounds for examination, the court may decline such requests A. Kalabai VS P. Pattammal & Others - Madras (2007).
• The necessity for examination is assessed based on the objections raised by the parties. If objections are made, the court should consider allowing the examination to clarify any issues A. Kalabai VS P. Pattammal & Others - Madras (2007).

Case Law Insights

• In a case where the appellants argued against the reliance on a Commissioner''s report due to the non-examination of the Commissioner, the court upheld the validity of the report, emphasizing that the appellants had the opportunity to examine the Commissioner but chose not to NEW MULTAN TIMBER STORE VS RATTAN CHAND SOOD (DECD. ) - Delhi (1997).
• Another judgment noted that the failure to mark the report as an exhibit does not preclude its consideration, especially when both parties had the chance to object or request its formal admission Arjuna Mahapatro VS Dayanidhi Bhainipati - Madras (1926).

Conclusion

• The prevailing legal view is that a Commissioner''s report can be considered valid evidence even without the examination of the Commissioner, provided that the parties had the opportunity to challenge or examine the report and did not do so.
• It is advisable for parties to formally request the examination of the Commissioner if they have objections to the report to ensure that their concerns are addressed in court.

Recommendations

• Ensure that any objections to a Commissioner''s report are formally raised and that requests for examination are made if necessary.
• Consider the strategic implications of relying on a Commissioner''s report without examination, as it may limit the ability to contest its findings later.

References: - NEW MULTAN TIMBER STORE VS RATTAN CHAND SOOD (DECD. ) - Delhi (1997) - Arjuna Mahapatro VS Dayanidhi Bhainipati - Madras (1926) - A. Kalabai VS P. Pattammal & Others - Madras (2007) - INDRAMANI BEHERA VS GHANASHYAM BEHERA - Orissa (1986)