9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether a party to a suit has the right to get a Commissioner examined with regard to his report. Analysis: In this case, a controversy arose regarding the examination of a Commissioner's report in a suit pending before the Trial Court. The petitioners sought permission to cross-examine the Commissioner after objections were filed against the report. The key issue was whether a party has the right to examine the Commissioner as per Order XXVI, Rules 9 & 10. Rule 10 allows the report and evidence taken by the Commissioner to be evidence in the suit. However, the Court or any party may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court regarding the matters in the report or the investigation process. If a party objects to the report and requests the Commissioner's examination, the Court must allow it for the report to become part of the evidence. The judgment referred to a Calcutta High Court case where it was established that if a party requests the examination of the Commissioner, the Court must allow it. Conversely, if no party objects or requests examination, the report can be part of the record without examination. Another judgment from the same Court emphasized that if the Commissioner is not examined, the report still forms part of the record. Therefore, the Court concluded that if an application is made for the examination of the Commissioner, the Court must allow it. Only in the absence of such a request can the report be considered part of the evidence without examination. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and allowed the revision petition. The Trial Court was directed to summon the Commissioner for examination by the concerned parties. This decision clarified that if a party requests the examination of the Commissioner, it is imperative for the Court to conduct the examination for the report to be considered as part of the evidence in the suit.
|
