PADMAKARAN K V Vs. VENUGOPALAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No. 65/2004. The Munsiff's Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for conducting cross examination and reexamination of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the Commissioner, in the absence of a panel, which is mandatory under O.XVIII R.4 of Clause 6 is illegal. Ext. P1 is the order passed by the Munsiff's Court appointing a Commissioner for the purpose of conducting cross examination an reexamination. It is true that O.XVIII R.4(6) states that the High Court or the District Judge as the case may be, shall prepare a panel of Commissioners to record the evidence under this rule. So long as there is no panel of Commissioners prepared for the purpose of examination of the witnesses in the said Court, petitioner cannot complain that Advocate Commissioner shall not be appointed. If it is a case of appointment of some Commissioners other than the Commissioners from the panel, I think that there is force in the contention of the petitioner, so long as there is no panel of Commissioner so far prepared. Appointment of a particular Advocate as a Commissioner in the facts of the case, cannot be challenged for the reason that he has not a member of the panel. In some cases in the interest of justice, appointment may be necessary. This is a case where the learned Munsiff's Court feels that the examination shall be done through an Advocate Commissioner. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext. P1 order.