9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order appointing a Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the challenge to an order appointing a Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction for the removal of a wall obstructing his passage, while the defendant claimed the disputed land as part of his backyard. The Court allowed the plaintiff's application for a Commissioner for local investigation despite the defendant's resistance. The defendant challenged this order, arguing that the trial Court erred by not providing reasons for the appointment. The Court emphasized that the power to appoint a Commissioner is discretionary and must be supported by reasons to ensure the proper exercise of discretion. The absence of reasons rendered the order liable to be set aside for material irregularity, even though the report of the Commissioner is just one piece of evidence in the case. The judgment delves into the purpose of appointing a Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. It highlights that the Court appoints a Commissioner to collect evidence for a just decision, but this power should not be used liberally. The appointment depends on the nature of the dispute and the specific circumstances of each case. The Court should ensure that appointing a Commissioner does not unduly assist a party who can present evidence independently. The judgment emphasizes that a Commissioner's report is not inherently more reliable than other evidence and should be used judiciously based on the case's requirements. The judgment cites precedents to illustrate the principles governing the appointment of a Commissioner. It emphasizes that a local investigation by a Commissioner can be ordered when a visit to the spot is necessary to clarify or explain points left doubtful by existing evidence. The Court must be judicially satisfied that a local investigation is requisite or proper based on reason. The judgment underscores that interference with an order appointing a Commissioner may not be warranted in all cases, especially when the order is discretionary and does not prejudice any party. However, where the Court fails to provide reasons for the appointment or when immediate commissioning is unnecessary, the order may be set aside. In conclusion, the Court allowed the civil revision, setting aside the order appointing a Commissioner and directing the trial Court to reconsider the application for the commission and objections afresh. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial satisfaction and reasoned decision-making in appointing Commissioners under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C.
|
