CHANDRABATI DEBI Vs. BUDHIA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule raises an interesting question. A boundary dispute is involved in the connected suit and a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for local inspection of the topography of the area around the suit land with certain specific directions in connection therewith. The commissioner filed his report and the defendant filed an objection to the said report. As the hearing of the suit commenced, the Pleader Commissioner was examined and thereafter it appears that he was cross-examined by the defendant. After the cross-examination was closed, the plaintiff wanted to cross-examine the Pleader Commissioner for some clarifications. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that there could not be any cross-examination over cross-examination. Further the plaintiff did not file any objection to the commissioner's report and accordingly he had nothing to cross-examine and no question of re-examination arose as there was no examination-in-chief. The plaintiff accordingly was not allowed to examine the Commissioner and the present Rule is directed against this order at the instance of the plaintiff.

(2.) MR. Dilip Kumar Bose, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff, submitted that his client did not file any objection to the Pleader Commissioner's report as it was accepted by him. But on account of certain statements made by the Commissioner in reply to the cross-examination, some clarification was necessary for which the plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to examine the Commissioner. These contentions have been disputed by Mr. Puspendu Bikash Sahu, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party.

(3.) THE procedure for examination of the Commissioner has been laid down in rule 10 of Order 26 of the Code of civil Procedure which is as follows: