R. NARASIMHAIAH Vs. SMT. SAKAMMANAMMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revision petitions are filed against the order rejecting the appointment of a Commissioner in O.S. No. 186 of 1995 and OS. No. 30 of 1996 both on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamarajanagar. The reason for rejecting of such appointment was that the evidence has not commenced and therefore before evidence is adduced the Commissioner cannot be appointed.

(2.) Mr. M. Sivappa appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner appointed is to find out the exact possession of the property as on date and not for the purpose of procuring evidence or for deciding the dispute between the parties. On the other hand, Mr. Shankar appearing for the respondent submitted, relying upon the dictum in Brij Lal Vs. Ram Pratap, AIR 1982 Del. 149 , that the Court cannot delegate its own powers to decide any dispute between the parties. The learned Counsel also relied upon a decision in AIR 1979 Cal. 296 (sic) to the effect that no commission can be issued for the purpose of collecting evidence. Finally, he relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Brij Lal's case, wherein the Delhi High Court held that "the Commissioner cannot decide the dispute between the parties".

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the dictum in K. Raghunath Rao Vs. Srnt. Tumula Jailaxmi, AIR 1988 Ori. 30 , which is to the following effect: In Debendranath Nandi Vs. Natha Bhuiyan, (1973) 39 Cut. L.T. 180 : AIR 1973 Ori. 240 , it is observed thus: