Commissioner-collected documents are not automatic evidence without normal proof and objection safeguards in civil proceedings.

Documents incidentally collected by a Commissioner appointed to perform a ministerial act under Order 26 Rule 10B are not automatically treated as evidence in the suit or as part of the record. The rule applies only to the limited extent contemplated by Rule 10(2), and it does not displace ordinary procedural safeguards for proof and admissibility. The opposing party must still be given a fair opportunity to object to relevance, admissibility, and reliability before the court considers such material. Accordingly, the trial court was justified in requiring a supporting affidavit and hearing the other side before using the documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether documents collected by a Commissioner appointed to perform a ministerial act under Order 26 Rule 10B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 automatically become evidence in the suit and part of the record so as to require exhibition without further pleading or affidavit.

Analysis: Order 26 Rule 10B applies only where a Commissioner is appointed to perform a ministerial act that cannot conveniently be performed before the Court, and sub-rule (2) extends the consequences of Rule 10 only to that limited extent. The appointment of a Commissioner for inventory does not, by itself, change the ordinary rules of procedure or evidence. Documents incidentally collected in the course of such commission are not transformed into evidence merely because they came into the Commissioner's possession. The opposing party must be given a fair opportunity to object to relevance, admissibility, and reliability, and the Court cannot treat such material as part of the suit record without the normal procedural safeguards.

Conclusion: The documents brought by the Commissioner were not automatically evidence in the suit or part of the record, and the trial Court was right in requiring supporting affidavit and opportunity to the other side before considering them.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the impugned order correctly preserved the ordinary rules governing proof and use of documents in civil proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A Commissioner appointed for a ministerial act under Order 26 Rule 10B does not make every document incidentally collected by him evidence in the suit; only the report and evidence actually covered by Rule 10(2) acquire that status, subject to the ordinary procedural safeguards.

---