Introduction

Commissions are instruments through which court deputes its own powers and functions to an outside authority to assess, examine or inquire into a matter to collect evidence or report on facts. Order XXVI of CPC deals with commissions. Commission does not amount to transfer or abdication of judicial power, rather court retains authority and superintendence over commission with power to assess commissioner’s report.

Types of Commissions

Following types of commissions are issued as per Order XXVI:

1. Commission to examine witness (O.26 R.1) – Where witness resides outside local limits of court’s jurisdiction, court may issue commission to record evidence.

2. Commission to make local investigation (O.26 R.9) – Court may issue commission to make local inspection or investigation to examine books, weights, measures etc. or conduct scientific investigation.

3. Commission to examine accounts (O.26 R.11) – Where accounts are in issue, court may direct a reference to certified accountant as commissioner.

4. Commission to make partition (O.26 R.13) – Where preliminary decree for partition has been passed, court may appoint commissioner to make the partition allotting shares.

5. Commission to perform ministerial act (O.26 R.16) – Courts may appoint commissioners where ministerial act like seizure, attachment, inventory of property etc. is required.

6. Commission to deliver property (O.21 R.21) – The court executing a decree may direct warrant to enforcement officer or appoint commissioner to deliver possession of property.

Powers of Commissioners

Powers of commissioner are co-extensive with the court except power to pronounce judgment (Mohanlal vs Beni Madhav, (1886) ILR 9 All 626). The court cannot invest commission with authority beyond court’s own powers. The commissioner exercises quasi-judicial functions, subject to court’s control (Rambilash Singh vs Mahant Mahadeva, (1997) 4 SCC 452). Commissioners act as extended arms of court to discharge functions judicially.

Case Laws

• State Bank of India vs Allied Chemical Laboratories, (2006) 9 SCC 741

The SC held commissioner’s acts done within jurisdiction, but with material irregularity, are not ipso facto void or illegal. Court has jurisdiction to enquire into regularity of proceedings. Report can be rejected on grounds of misconduct, ouster of jurisdiction or illegality.

• Sarguja Transport Service vs STA Tribunal, (1987) 1 SCC 44

The SC held tribunal could appoint employee as commissioner to inspect buses to ascertain fitness. Persons having expertise can be appointed as commissioners. Technical aspects can be delegated to qualified persons possessing special skills.