VEERAKANI RAWTHER Vs. 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.) IN this context, the root question that calls for decision is whether there is any power or jurisdiction in the court to order additional remuneration to be paid to the commissioner. Since there is no specific power discernible in any of the rules in Order XXVI C. P. C. and the rules in the Civil Rules of Practice, it is not at all difficult to trace the source of power in S. 151 C. P. C. I have no doubt that the court which appointed the commission has the power to direct the party who is bound to pay the commissioner, to deposit or pay an additional sum to the commissioner, if the court deems fit to do so. The reason is obvious; it is not possible with exactitude, to estimate the actual fee payable for the work to be done by the commissioner at the time the court orders the appointment of commission. This power is an inherent power of the court which stems from the power to appoint a commission.