ROSHAN LAL Vs. JAI SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. The application bearing CM No. 18606 -CII of 2015 and revision petition is restored to their original number and are taken up for motion hearing.

(2.) The Trial Courts are under severe strain for paucity of time and it is essential for the Courts to adopt practices which allow for their smooth functioning without faltering the course of trials in any way. If an objection to local commissioner's report is made, the Court will examine the objection along with other evidence by allowing parties to give evidence as regards the Commissioner's report and if need be to examine the local commissioner himself to elicit the objections raised by the parties. It is important to remember that the local commissioner is not to be understood as witness for anyone party. The provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 that allows a person for inspection of the property and give a report shall be understood in such a way that the Commissioner shall be seen as an extended arm of the Court and hence an officer of the Court. If neither of the parties have any objection to the report, the Court will simply act on the report to the extent that the report is relevant for adjudicating on the controversy involved in the suit. However, if there is any objection to the Commissioner's report, it will be considered by the Court only to satisfy itself whether the objection must prevail and if it holds so, it will be competent to reissue the commission to the same local commissioner or under extra -ordinary circumstances, opt for another local commissioner to be issued after scrapping the first report. The attempt must be to ensure that there are no two conflicting versions through two different reports.

(3.) If second local commissioner was to be issued, it shall be under all or any of the following circumstances: