partition suit
anandakumar
(Querist) 14 April 2016
This query is : Resolved
sirs, in a partition suit the plaintiffs prayed for appointment of an advocate commissioner to ascertain to whom the rents are paid by the tenants of suit property.The commissioner visited the suit property and filed his report in dec 2006.The plaintiff ladies all these years maintained a good friendship with the advocate commissioner.Recently before few days i.e in april 2016.he was examined as pw2 in the partition suit.The advocate commissioner deposed evidence favouring the plaintiffs and deviated from his report.During the cross examination the advocate commissioner spoke against the contesting defendant and deposed he has no connection with the plaintiff ladies in any manner or at any point of time.finally when the defendants counsel showed few receipts of the year 2015 july ,connected with the 1st plaintiff lady in which the advocate commissioner signed as a wittness identifying the 1st plaintiff lady and her daughter ,he accepted the said fact that he signed those receipts and also voluntarily added that he received a cash of rupees 5000/= for the identification.Now i want to know.how far his commission report can be relied.by the court.?will the court score his entire commission report as biased..?can the defendant take any disciplinary action against the advocate commissioner for his misconduct?pls advice.....
P. Venu
(Expert) 15 April 2016
He can move an application for setting aside the Commission Report.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 15 April 2016
The advocate commissioner has submitted his reports in 2006 and signed identification of one plaintiff in some documents in 2015.
There seem to be no favoring attitude of the commissioner specifically when he has submitted his reports already.
However full case file need to be referred for any advice.
Adv. Yogen Kakade
(Expert) 15 April 2016
Rightly answered by mr. venu.
Contact a local lawyer.
anandakumar
(Querist) 15 April 2016
but the advocate commissioner deposed that he does not know any of the plaintiffs or their family members at any point of time and confirmed again in the wittness box.later when he was shown to the papers in which he was a identifying wittness of the 1st plaintiff and also her daughter he admitted his sinatures and also voluntarily added he received rs.5000 for such identification from the 1st plainff and her daughter.prior he said he.never knew plaintiffs or their family members....
