Report No. 27
Order XXV, rule 1
Local Amendments to Order XXV, rule 11 provide, in substance, for a power to require security for costs in cases in which an element of champerty or maintenance is proved. These implement the recommendation of the Civil Justice Committee2. As the problem may not exist in all States, an all-India Amendment is not necessary.
1. E.g. amendments made by Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Orissa.
2. Report of the Civil Justice Committee, p. 517, chapter 44, para. 27 (with reference to Oudh).
Order XXVI, rule 7
The change is verbal.
Order XXVI, rule 9
The Calcutta Amendment takes away the power of the State Government to make rules as to persons to whom commissions to make local investigations may be issued.
It is, however, felt that the power should continue, as the State Government may be in a position to know which persons are properly qualified. Hence no change is suggested.
Order XXVI, rule 16A
A recommendation was made in the Fourteenth Report1 relating to the powers and procedure of Commissioners while recording evidence. The recommendation was that a provision should be inserted to the effect, that the Commissioner shall, while recording evidence, have regard to the provisions of the Evidence Act, and that in case the pleader or other person examining the witnesses presses any question which the Commissioner has disallowed, he should record such question and answer but the same should not be admitted in the evidence except by the order of the Judge.
So far as a provision that the Commissioner shall have regard to the Evidence Act is concerned, an express rule in the Civil Procedure Code is not considered necessary2. So far as questions objected to by the opposite party are concerned, it is considered, that whether or not the objection is pressed, the suggested procedure should apply. Necessary amendment is proposed.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. See sections 1 and 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.