CHERIYAKUTTY Vs. A K MADHAVAN UNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in a suit for fixing the boundary of the suit property wanted a commission to be appointed for the inspection of the suit property and to make a proper report and plan of the suit property. The court ordered a commission. An Advocate Commissioner executed the commission and submitted a report and plan. Both sides filed objections to the report and plan. The court was convinced that there was merit in the objections and set aside the commission report.

(2.) The commissioner filed a memo for additional remuneration. He wanted as additional remuneration a sum of Rs. 5,000/- The court ordered the plaintiff to pay an additional remuneration of Rs. 1,500/-.

(3.) The grievance of the revision petitioner is that since the Commissioner's report and plan were set aside, the plaintiff has not been benefited by the work of the commission and in the light of this important circumstance, the court ought not to have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction directing the plaintiff to pay an additional remuneration of Rs. 1,500/- to the Commissioner. A senior counsel, Shri. N. Viswanatha Iyer, who appeared for the petitioner submitted that normally, he would not have challenged an order of the court below directing payment of additional remuneration to a Commissioner. But, in this case, he feels that his client has been put to unmerited loss and hardship. To bear out the submission, the counsel adverted to the power source of the court in the matter of allowing additional remuneration to the Commissioner appointed by the court. He rightly submits that there is no clear and explicit power in the Code for the court to direct the plaintiff or the defendant as the case may be, to deposit an amount to be paid to the Commissioner as additional remuneration.