Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"This is a statement to appoint a Commissioner for assessing the additional details enumerated in the statement. This is opposed by 1st defendant's counsel on the ground that many items covered by petitioner are covered by prior findings and hence need not be reassesed. The Commissioner is directed to file a report regarding the points now sought. If any portion in the report is covered by prior findings, that portion in the report will be finally eschewed while accepting or rejecting the additional report. As agreed to at bar by both sides Sri. R. Sadasivan Nair. M. Com. LL.B. well-versed in accounting is appointed Commissioner. It is conceded by both sides that since the Commissioner is a competent hand, appointment of a professional auditor is "unnecessary. The Commissioner will file his report before 15-1-1975. His remuneration will be fixed later. All the necessary accounts and statements or other records in the Court will be furnished to the receiver on his receipt. Parties are also directed to furnish any record with them, if the Commissioner makes a demand or submit any explanations by way of clarifications."

The first defendant took up the matter in revision, C.R.P. No. 41 of 1975. By order dated 19-2-1975 this court passed on order to the following effect:

"The plaintiff filed a statement and requested the court to dispute a Commissioner for making a report on those statements. The court below was careful enough to direct that if any portion of the report to be filed by the new Commissioner is covered by prior findings, that portion in the report will be finally eschewed while accepting or rejecting the additional report. That apparently is for avoiding any duplication."

The order of the trial Court dated 21-12-1974 was not interfered with. Thereafter, the court proceeded further with the case and delivered judgment in the suit on 29-11-1977. The court below set aside Ext. C5 and based its decision on the reports of the second Commissioner (Exts. C6 and C10). It is from the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, the first defendant as well as the first plaintiff have filed the above appeals.

(2) The main point involved in these appeals is relating to the accounts and the liability of the first defendant. The Supreme Court directed the appointment of a Commissioner and had given specific directions relating to that matter. Counsel for the first defendant, Mr. C. K. Sivasankara Panicker, very vehemently attached the approach and the basis of the decision of the lower court. The court below discarded Ext. C5 report (1st Commissioner's report) altogether and placed reliance on the second Commissioner's reports (Exts. C6 and C10). Counsel attacked the approach made in this regard as unjustified and unsustainable. Counsel for the first plaintiff, Mr. P. Sukumaran Nair, was not able to successfully substantiate the approach and basis adopted by the lower court in eschewing Ext C5 totally, and also in setting aside Ext. C5 (first Commissioner's report), after obtaining the second report (Exts. C6 and C10). However, counsel submitted in the alternative, that in view of prior proceedings, the court below could place reliance on Exts. C6 and C10 (second Commissioner's reports) to the extent they do not militate against the findings contained or dealt with in Ext. C5. On this aspect, counsel stressed the terms of the order of the trial court dated 21-12-1974 as afirmed in C.R.P. No. 41 of 1975.

9. It is settled law that the decision of a court on a question relating to jurisdiction, cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the court and such decision cannot operateas res judicata in subsequent proceedings Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai, AIR 1971 SC 2355. Since the appointment of the second commissioner in this case is without jurisdiction, the under of the trial court dated 21-12-1974 as affirmed by this court in C.R.P. 41 of 1975 dated 19-2-1975 cannot be a bar in ignoring or eschewing or discarding Exts. C6 and C10. The interlocutory order passed by the trial court dated 21-12-1974 as also the order passed in revision, C.R.P.No. 41 of 1975, cannot be a deter in considering the matter afresh when it comes up before a Bench of this court in the appeal filed from the final decree in the suit. In this context, we may bear in mind Section 105(1) C.P.C. :