The Orissa High Court affirms that a Commissioner’s report under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC remains mere evidence and may be challenged at any stage, overruling the 1st Appellate Court’s contrary view; this clarification is binding on all subordinate courts in civil disputes involving local inspection reports.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/345/1996 of RATNAKAR Vs BHAGABAN |
| CNR | ODHC010006211996 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice A.C. Behera |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on all subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a report under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, even if formally accepted on submission, is akin to any other evidence and is neither final nor conclusive; parties remain free to dispute its correctness during trial. Here, the Commissioner’s report was never proved by the Commissioner in his deposition and was rightly excluded from consideration. Absent any other evidence of encroachment, the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit on factual grounds stood confirmed. An appellate court must assign reasons when reversing a trial court under Section 100 CPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff purchased 0.19 decimals of Plot No.1273 in 1966 and alleged the defendant encroached 0.011½ decimals (Schedule “Ga”) by shifting the boundary fence. The defendant held adjacent 0.16 decimals of Plot No.1273 since 1968 and denied any encroachment. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of credible evidence. The 1st Appellate Court reversed based solely on a Commissioner’s report, prompting this second appeal. |
| Citations | SA No.345/1996 (Orissa High Court); CNR ODHC010006211996 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts in Orissa |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts when dealing with Commissioner’s reports under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC |
| Overrules | Judgment and decree in M.A. No.20/88-I (1st Appellate Court, Orissa High Court) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a Commissioner’s report under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, even if formally accepted, is not conclusive and remains open to challenge.
- Confirms that absence of the Commissioner’s deposition on the report (map/field book) warrants exclusion of the report from evidence.
- Emphasises that an appellate court in a second appeal must give clear reasons when reversing trial court findings under Section 100 CPC.
- Clarifies that no relief can be granted on the basis of an unproved local inspection report alone.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession due to inconsistent witness evidence and failure to prove the Commissioner’s report.
- 1st Appellate Court reversed based solely on the formal acceptance of the report, holding it unchallengeable.
- On second appeal, the High Court applied settled Orissa and Supreme Court precedents to hold that:
- A Commissioner’s report is mere evidence, not conclusive.
- Formal acceptance does not bar subsequent challenge.
- The report must be proved by the Commissioner’s own testimony.
- Noting that the Commissioner (D.W.2) never testified about the report, map, field book or suit plot numbers, the court excluded the report from consideration.
- Absent any other evidence, the trial court’s dismissal was upheld; the appellate reversal without proper analysis was set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- A Commissioner’s report, though accepted on submission, is neither final nor binding and may be challenged at trial.
- The report was not proved by the Commissioner’s deposition; it should have been excluded.
- The 1st Appellate Court erred in reversing on no other basis and failed to provide adequate reasoning as required under Section 100 CPC.
Respondent
- No counsel appeared; no additional arguments recorded.
Factual Background
The plaintiff claimed ownership of 0.19 decimals of Plot No.1273 purchased in 1966 and alleged the defendant encroached 0.011½ decimals (Schedule “Ga”) after acquiring adjacent 0.16 decimals in 1968. A middle fence and trees defined the boundary. The plaintiff sought declaration and recovery of possession; the trial court dismissed for lack of proof. The 1st Appellate Court reversed based on a Commissioner’s local inspection report, leading to this second appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 26 Rule 9 CPC: Governs appointment and report of Civil Court Commissioners; such reports are evidence but neither final nor binding on the court.
- Section 100 CPC: Allows second appeals only on substantial questions of law; requires appellate courts to assign reasons when reversing trial court decisions on fact and law.
Procedural Innovations
None introduced; the judgment reinforces existing procedural norms regarding proof and challenge of local inspection reports.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms settled law on Commissioner’s reports under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.
Citations
- Sambhunath Sahu v. Upendra Palai, 1984 (I) OLR 363
- Mangulu Sahoo v. Gouranga Muduli, (33) OJD 17 (Civ) 1991
- Sankar Kumar & Anr. v. Mohanlal Sharma, AIR 1998 (Orissa) 117
- Lalteomoni Mohanty v. First Addl. Dist. Judge, 1996 (I) OLR 342
- Abhijit Lahiri v. Ashok Roy, 2014 (Supp.) Civ.C.C. 58 (Cal.)
- Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya, 2025 (3) CLJ (SC) 48
- Retnamma v. Mehboob, 2013 (3) Civ.C.C. 65 (Kerala)
- R. Ramamoorthy v. Kanakamma, 2019 (1) Civ.C.C. 337 (Madras)
- Thankamani v. Vasanthi, 2021 (1) Civ.C.C. 15 (Kerala)