P L D 1967 Dacca 774 (PLP)

"Thereafter your petitioner filed an objection challen ging the correctness of the report of the pleader‑commissioner and the same was ultimately fixed for hearing on 11‑7‑66." This statement does not indicate that the defendant‑petitioner obtained several adjournments for filing objections against the report of the Pleader Commissioner. On a reference to the order sheet, I find that the Pleader‑Commissioner submitted his report on 28‑3‑

66. Thereafter the defendant‑petitioner took time on 8‑4‑66, 22‑4‑66, 4‑5‑66, 19‑5‑66, and 30‑5‑

66. Then only on 10‑6‑66 he filed an objection against the report of the Pleader‑Com missioner‑ Then 18‑6‑66 was fixed for hearing of the objection. Again on 18‑6‑66, the defendant‑petitioner took time for hearing of his objection. On 28‑6‑66 it is stated in the order‑sheet that "defendant files a petition paying for adjournment of the hearing against the report of the Pleader‑Commissioner". Then on 11‑7‑66, the impugned order rejecting the prayer for further adjournment was made. Instead of setting aside the impugned order dated 11‑7‑66, I want to say that the learned Munsif ought not to have granted so many adjournments to the petitioner. He should have rejected the prayer for adjournment on 22‑4‑

66. The report was submitted on 28‑3‑

66. The matter came up for hearing on 8‑4‑

66. If defendant had objection to the report, he should have submitted his written objection on 8‑4‑66 and that ought to have been heard on 22‑4‑

66. No further adjournment should have been granted. I would not have issued Rule in this matter if these facts would have been stated in the petition. The petition is certainly liable to be rejected, apart from the merits of the case, on the ground of suppression of material facts. Learned Advocate for petitioner has, however, submitted that his client did not supply him with a copy of the order‑sheet nor gave him any instruction whatsoever about so many adjournments having been taken m this behalf. I accept the statements of the learned Advocate that so far as he is concerned he was unaware of a number of adjournments having been granted for the purpose. Be that as it may, it is clear that the learned Munsif has rightly rejected the prayer for further adjournment and accepted the report in question. The petitioner will, however be entitled to make his sub missions at the time of the argument in Court in regard to the report of the Pleader‑Commissioner and the Court will consider the points raised against the report. The report is a piece of evidence in the suit and is to be considered just as any other evidence after taking into consideration the points that may be raised against it. In this connection the following observation occurring in the case of Adwaita Charan Gope @ Adbita Gope and another v. Kadaruddin and others (7 D L R 598) may be recalled. "It is now too well established to be doubted that the Com missioner's report is merely evidence in the case, although generally accepted; if the Commissioner has performed his duties carefully and satisfactorily, and is in no way binding upon the Court. The weight to be attached to such evidence must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and the other evidence, if any, adduced in the case. If it has been carefully prepared it should not be lightly rejected without proper consideration of the reasons given by the Commissioner but if on the face of it the report appears to have been based on no materials or insufficient materials, as in the present case, then, in my opinion, it would be in the discretion of the Court either to order another enquiry or reject it if there be other satisfactory evidence adduced upon which the Court can come to a finding. I am also of opinion that the learned Munsif rightly rejected the prayer for issuing summons upon the Pleader Commissioner as it appears clearly that such a prayer was a belated one. For the reasons stated above, I am of opinion that the impugned Orders Nos. 60 and 61 do not call for any inter ference whatsoever. The rule is accordingly discharged with costs. In view of the delay that has occurred in the disposal of the suit, by reason of the frivolous adjournments obtained by the petitioner as well as this revisional application I direct the learned Munsif to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month. Let the record be sent down forthwith. K. B. A. Rule discharged.