Case Background
The case originated from a partition suit involving three brothers disputing the division of a single-storey building inherited from their father, who had acquired the property independently and possessed it until his death in 1976. The trial court decreed that each brother was entitled to a one-third share of the property. Subsequently, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed to facilitate the division, and a report was submitted. However, the respondents-plaintiffs objected to this report, leading the trial court to appoint a second Pleader Commissioner without providing reasons for disregarding the initial report.
High Court's Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the matter, criticized the lower court's decision, stating that such a practice is improper and contrary to the intent of Order 26, Rule 10(3) CPC. He emphasized that reasons for superseding the first Commissioner's report must be recorded in writing by the Court. Issuing a second commission on the same subject without addressing the adequacy of the first report undermines judicial propriety. Justice Dwivedi remarked, "Instead of that if the Judge balances the report of one Commissioner against that of the other and expresses a preference for the view of the first Commissioner, he acts with great impropriety and contrary to what is contemplated by Order 26, Rule 10(3) of C.P.C."
Legal Implications
This ruling reinforces the procedural safeguards enshrined in the CPC, ensuring that the appointment of commissioners is conducted transparently and judiciously. The Court's insistence on recording reasons for superseding a Commissioner's report aims to prevent arbitrary judicial actions and uphold the integrity of the legal process.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court's decision serves as a critical reminder to lower courts to adhere strictly to procedural rules when appointing commissioners. The necessity of providing explicit reasons for disregarding a Commissioner's report is paramount to maintain fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings. This judgment is expected to influence future cases involving the appointment of multiple commissioners, ensuring that such decisions are made with due diligence and proper justification.
 CPC: Jharkhand High Court){kind=link}
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.