Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Advocate Commissioner's Report - The report was not part of the final judgment in the case (O.S.No.391 of 2012). Neither the Advocate Commissioner nor the Mandal Surveyor were examined or cross-examined, and the report was not marked as evidence. The court noted that without examining the commissioner, the report's evidentiary value is limited, and parties should have had the opportunity to cross-examine or argue on its validity. This suggests that a report by an Advocate Commissioner, if not examined as a witness, may not hold substantive evidentiary weight in court decisions ["2024 5 Supreme(Telangana) 741"].
Witness Examination and Evidence - In cases involving property disputes, the absence of examination of key witnesses or the Advocate Commissioner can impact the court's ability to rely on reports or surveys. The court emphasized the importance of examining such reports through witnesses to ensure their credibility and relevance ["2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 681"].
Role of Advocate Commissioner in Prohibitory Injunctions - The main legal insight is that reports by Advocate Commissioners are not automatically part of the record unless they are examined and marked as evidence. Their reports cannot be used as conclusive proof without proper examination, and parties must be given the opportunity to cross-examine the commissioner or surveyor involved ["2024 5 Supreme(Telangana) 741"].
Summary and Conclusion - When an Advocate Commissioner's report is submitted in a case, its validity and evidentiary weight depend on whether the commissioner was examined as a witness. Reports not examined or marked as evidence lack the necessary procedural foundation for reliance in court judgments, especially in property disputes or injunction cases. Therefore, courts should ensure proper examination and cross-examination of such reports to uphold fair trial standards ["2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 681"], ["2024 5 Supreme(Telangana) 741"].
References:- 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 681- 2024 5 Supreme(Telangana) 741
In probate proceedings involving wills, disputes often arise over property boundaries, encroachments, or possession—issues that frequently require factual investigations. A common question litigants face is: Whether Witness Commission can be Allowed to Examine the Witness in will Probate Case? More precisely, can a court permit the examination of an Advocate Commissioner as a witness, and does their report serve as substantive evidence even without such examination?
This blog delves into the legal nuances under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, particularly Order 26, drawing from judicial precedents. While courts generally treat the Commissioner's report as evidence, its weight may vary based on circumstances like ex parte appointments or contested findings. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The report of an Advocate Commissioner can be considered substantive evidence in suits, including probate cases seeking prohibitory injunctions, even if the Commissioner is not examined as a witness—provided it is properly filed and parties had a chance to object. However, non-examination may reduce its evidentiary value, especially when pivotal to issues like property demarcation or encroachment. 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 681
Under Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC, The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. This makes the report admissible per se. 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 681
Order 26 empowers courts to appoint Commissioners for local investigations, surveys, or accounts (Rules 9-10). The report inherently forms part of the suit record, usable as substantive evidence. In Bhaskaran vs. Shobha and Others (2010 KHC 895), the court noted that an ex parte report has limited evidentiary value unless the Commissioner is examined, and his credibility is established. 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 681
Examination is advisable if:- The report was obtained ex parte without notice. 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 681- Parties contest findings, necessitating cross-examination. 1951 0 Supreme(Mad) 130- It's central to possession or encroachment claims in probate matters. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1977
In Gnanaraj vs. Bakyalakshmi (2006 (3) TLNJ 1), the court held that discretion to examine must be exercised judiciously, especially when the report’s findings are contested. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1977
Probate suits often involve interim injunctions. Courts rely on Commissioner reports for factual clarity on physical features. While admissible, non-examination weakens contested reports. Practice favors summoning for cross-examination to bolster credibility. 1951 0 Supreme(Mad) 130
Courts exercise caution in commissioner appointments and report usage. In a property survey case under Order XXVI Rule 9, the commissioner executed the warrant in parties' presence, was cross-examined, and no fresh appointment was needed despite claims of insufficiency—the commissioner had substantially complied with the directions. 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 919
Another ruling under Article 227 and
In contexts like FSL reports or police inquiries, courts clarify that extraneous facts in reports are inadmissible without proper proof, mirroring commissioner report scrutiny—If report contained fact extraneous to report called—Not admissible in evidence. 2008 0 Supreme(All) 1010
These precedents reinforce that while reports are evidence, examination addresses challenges, aligning with CPC's evidentiary safeguards.
Non-examination may not impair validity if:- No objections raised or report uncontested.- Obtained with notice and cross-examination opportunity.- Based on admitted facts or documentary evidence. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1977
In Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (2000 MLJ 7), the court stressed discretion should be exercised carefully, not automatic. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1977
In revision petitions, like those challenging commissioner refusals, courts dismiss if no merit shown, underscoring timely action. 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 919
In will probate cases, an Advocate Commissioner's report remains valid evidence under CPC Order 26 Rule 10(2), even sans examination. Yet, its strength amplifies with testimony, particularly in disputed property matters. Courts balance discretion with fairness, favoring examination for credibility in ex parte or contested scenarios.
Key Takeaways:- Report is substantive evidence by default. 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 681- Examination desirable for pivotal, challenged reports. 1951 0 Supreme(Mad) 130- Judicial prudence governs—case-specific.
This analysis draws from established precedents; outcomes vary. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your facts. Stay informed on CPC applications to strengthen your probate position.
#AdvocateCommissioner #ProbateLaw #CPCLaw
The sanctity of Commission report was considered by this Court in case where the Commissioner and Surveyor were not examined in the decisions reported in Bhaskaran vs. ... In so far as possession claimed by the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property confining the same to A, B and C plots, the evidence available as that of PW1, not substantially shaken, in a case where the defendants did not mount the....
Moreover, to elicit the real truth quite intentionally the defendants did not enter into the witness box. ... The plaintiff and her mother, who is the donor of the property, were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and the matter is posted to 04.09.2019 for defendants’ evidence. ... It is further contended that if at all, the plaintiff wants to file the said document, in the evidence of PW1 itself, the document ought to have been filed as it is within....
[c] the petitioner is directed to report before the respondent police on every Wednesday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation ... [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. ... The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and h....
be within his right to request for issuance of witness summons; production of FSL report at the stage of oral evidence and the order impugned shall not, in any manner, cause an impediment in pursuing such a request. ... However, so as to ensure that in future, right of the present petitioner is not jeopardized and it is not left in the realm of ambiguity, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be withi....
As discussed supra, the Advocate-Commissioner's report was not part of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.391 of 2012. Neither the Advocate Commissioner nor Mandal Surveyor were examined in the said suit. Therefore, the same was not brought on record. ... parties to cross-examine the Advocate - Commissioner and also the Mandal Surveyor and also to argue on the validity of the Advocate-Commissioner's #HL_ST....
Furthermore, the written report was not read over to him, though he had signed over the written report. ... Based on the injury report, she deposed that sign of forced intercourse within seven days was present, when the victim was examined. On perusal of the evidence of the I.O. ... the informant(PW-4) had not disclosed anyone’s name who had committed the offence. Further....
Chakraborty, learned Advocvate for the respondent, submits that a voluminous writ was served upon the Enforcement Directorate only yesterday, and therefore he has not yet been able to obtain the necessary instructions. Mr. ... The police authorities investigated the allegations and concluded that they lacked any substance, and acordingly submitted a final report.
He mentioned that he did not refer the title deed in his report and he did not enclose the title deeds to his report. The witness was cross-examined on 20.08.2019. However, the petition was filed only on 27.02.2020. ... Since the report of the commissioner has exhaustively dealt with and he was thoroughly cross-examined, there is no need to appoint ano....
of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5992 of 2020 on 05.10.2020, the petitioner made an application on rd 22.10.2022 before the 3 respondent for deletion of the subject matter property from the prohibiotory ... While the matter stood th thus, the 5 respondent issued notice dated 24.09.2022 to the petitioner and questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32066 of 2022 and an interim order was passed by this th Court directing the 5 respondent herein #HL_S....
of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5992 of 2020 on 05.10.2020, the petitioner made an application on rd 22.10.2022 before the 3 respondent for deletion of the subject matter property from the prohibiotory ... While the matter stood th thus, the 5 respondent issued notice dated 24.09.2022 to the petitioner and questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32066 of 2022 and an interim order was passed by this th Court directing the 5 respondent herein #HL_S....
She filed M.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2005, claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000. Before the Tribunal, appellant was examined as first witness and the doctor who gave disability certificate was examined as second witness, on the side of the appellant.
The Magistrate had not directed for investigation and if the report contained any other fact it was extraneous to the report called and was not admissible in evidence. In the circumstances, the witness who gave that report could not be examined to prove any fact that was itself inadmissible.
According to the report, she was examined in mental hospital from 2.6.2004 to 12.6.2004 Dr. Amrendra Kumar, who had examined her, gave the report, which was Paper No. 71 Ga. Dr. Amrendra Kumar appeared as witness and proved the report. The report of Mental Hospital, Varanasi was referred to Chief Medical Superintendent through Rishi Prasad and the said report was also sent to the Court.
It was held that it could not be regarded as evidence because the course indicated in the case of Empress v. Samiruddin, 1881 (8) Cal. 211, had not been followed. What was held then as regards the statement which was sought to be proved was that the writing made by the Magistrate who recorded the statement could not be admitted to prove the statement made by the deceased. The case of Empress v. Samiruddin, 1881 (8) Cal. 211, has been treated as the leading case and is referred to in all or nea....
1 was examined as a witnesses at the time of the inquest and since Ex. A2 (inquest panchanama) shows that the deceased who was sitting in the back seat of the jeep was thrown out of the jeep, it can be prima facie taken that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. For reasons best known to the respondents 1 to 3, Venkatesam, son of the 1st respondent, who gave the report to the police and was also examined as an eye witness to the accide....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.