Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXVI, r. 12

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXVI, r. 12-Commissioner-Scope of powers of Commissioner appointed to report on state of accounts after affording parties opportunity to produce their evidence-Commis sioner determining liability of appellant, going into question of increased rates (subject-matter of issue to be decided by Court) and giving finding with regard to certain entries being forged-Report, held, not in conformity with scope of Commissioner's authority and trial Court's order confirming such report set aside. Date of hearing : 14th October, 1979. JUDGMENT SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-This 1st Appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 16th December, 1968 passed by 1st Civil Judge First Class, Karachi, whereby report of the Commissioner appointed by the Court for taking accounts has been confirmed and application made under Order XXVI, rules 11 and 12-C. P. C. by appellant/defendant raising objections against the report of the Commissioner has been rejected. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent/plaintiff had done cartage work for the appellant/defendant which is a Firm and also assisted in the clearance of goods and used to be paid remuneration for his services rendered. It appears that the differences arose between the parties when respondent demanded higher rates and subsequently called upon the appellant to settle accounts for the period of about three years from 6th October, 1953 to August, 1956 for which remuneration was allegedly not paid to him. Appellant used to maintain account books, which were handed over to the respondent for scrutiny and determination of the amount payable to him. After exchange of notices respondent filed Suit for accounts, during the pendency of which joint application was made under Order XXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. for a preliminary decree with consent of the parties which was passed. Mr. S. Inayat Ali was appointed as Commissioner with the consent of the parties to take accounts and give his report. The Commissioner submitted his report dated 5th December, 1959 in the Court, which was challenged by the appellant. This report was ex parte as the Commissioner commenced proceedings in the absence of…