Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lagama Beerasidda Pujeri, challenged an order dated 6.2.2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Raibag, in FDP No.3/2012, whereby the learned Judge appointed the Taluka Surveyor as a Court Commissioner to effect partition of landed properties mentioned in the schedule. The background of the case involves a suit for partition and separate possession filed on 8.2.1978 by Bheemappa and Siddappa against Malakari Dhareppa Kotre, the father of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The suit was decreed on 22.6.1985. Malakari Kotre appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on 7.11.1989. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2, as legal representatives of Bheemappa, initiated final decree proceedings (FDP) against the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 8. The core legal issue was whether the appointment of a Taluka Surveyor as a Court Commissioner for partition was valid under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner argued that such appointment was improper as the Surveyor is a government servant and may be biased or have a conflict of interest. The respondents supported the appointment. The court analyzed the provisions of Order XX Rule 18 CPC and held that a Commissioner appointed for partition should be an advocate or a disinterested person, not a government official, to ensure impartiality. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh appointment of a suitable Commissioner, preferably an advocate or a retired officer, directing that the appointment be made within two months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Final Decree Proceedings - Appointment of Court Commissioner - Order XX Rule 18 CPC - The court held that the appointment of a Taluka Surveyor as a Court Commissioner for partition of landed properties is improper as it violates the principle that a Commissioner should be an advocate or a disinterested person, not a government official who may have bias or conflict of interest. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh appointment. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Court Commissioner - Impartiality - Order XX Rule 18 CPC - The court emphasized that a Commissioner appointed under Order XX Rule 18 CPC must be impartial and independent, and a government servant like a Taluka Surveyor may not be perceived as such, especially when the government is not a party. The court directed appointment of an advocate or a retired officer as Commissioner. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of a Taluka Surveyor as a Court Commissioner for effecting partition of landed properties in final decree proceedings is valid under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 6.2.2015, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh appointment of a suitable Court Commissioner, preferably an advocate or a retired officer, within two months.
Law Points
- Order XX Rule 18 CPC
- Court Commissioner appointment
- impartiality
- conflict of interest
- advocate commissioner
- partition decree execution
