SEETHALEKSHMI Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is trite law that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is evidence only in the suit in which it is filed under O. XXVIR, 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Of course the report can be marked in evidence in another suit by examining the same Advocate Commissioner. The mere fact that there exists a report of the Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No. 175/2005 does not disable the Court below in appointing an Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No. 320/2009. This is notwithstanding the fact that the counter claim in O.S. No. 320/2009 has been decreed even though the plaint claim therein stands resurrected. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The order is merely procedural and does not affect the right of the petitioners at present. The implications of the decree in O.S. No. 175/2005 or the decree in counter claim in O.S. No. 320/2009 are matters to be considered by the Court below.