1984 (3) TMI 434 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interim orders and injunctions regarding businesses and properties.
2. Appointment of Commissioner and Special Officer.
3. Relevance, admissibility, and reliability of documents collected by the Commissioner.
4. Application of Order 26 Rule 10 and Rule 10B of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
5. Maintainability of the revision application under Section 115 of the CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interim Orders and Injunctions Regarding Businesses and Properties:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that various businesses and properties were family-owned, with each family branch having a one-third share. They requested interim orders to restrain defendants from carrying on businesses and alienating properties, and for the appointment of a receiver to manage these businesses. The trial court initially appointed a Commissioner to make an inventory of the properties and documents.

2. Appointment of Commissioner and Special Officer:
The plaintiffs also requested the appointment of a Special Officer to collect arbitration records from the arbitrators. The trial court appointed a Commissioner for making an inventory and taking possession of relevant documents. The plaintiffs feared that defendants might manipulate accounts or destroy arbitration records, which justified the need for immediate orders.

3. Relevance, Admissibility, and Reliability of Documents Collected by the Commissioner:
The plaintiffs argued that documents collected by the Commissioner should be treated as evidence in the suit without needing additional affidavits or pleadings to establish their relevance and admissibility. They contended that under Rule 10(2) of Order 26, the Commissioner's report and collected documents should automatically be considered as evidence.

4. Application of Order 26 Rule 10 and Rule 10B of the CPC:
The court examined whether the appointment of the Commissioner fell under Rule 10B, which pertains to the performance of ministerial acts. The court concluded that the appointment was made under its inherent powers (Section 151 of the CPC) and not specifically under Rule 10B. Even if Rule 10B applied, it would not change the fundamental rules of procedure and evidence. The court emphasized that the Commissioner's role was limited to making an inventory and not to take possession of documents as evidence.

5. Maintainability of the Revision Application under Section 115 of the CPC:
The defendants argued that the revision application was not maintainable as the trial court had neither admitted nor rejected any evidence at this stage. The court agreed that no interference was warranted in the present case, as the trial court's order did not cause any jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or failure of justice.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the trial court's decision. The court ruled that the documents collected by the Commissioner could not be automatically treated as evidence without proper affidavits and pleadings to establish their relevance and admissibility. The appointment of the Commissioner was deemed to be under the court's inherent powers, and the fundamental rules of procedure and evidence remained applicable. The objections regarding the maintainability of the revision application were noted but not addressed in detail, as the court found no need to interfere with the trial court's order.