Post-hearing commissioner applications may be received in exceptional cases where justice requires discretion after arguments are closed.

A trial court may, in exceptional circumstances, receive an interlocutory application for appointment of a Court Commissioner even after arguments have concluded and the matter has been reserved for judgment. The practice of declining such applications at that stage is a convention, not an inflexible rule, and the court retains discretion to act where necessary to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The distinction between a case adjourned after ex parte hearing and one already closed for judgment does not prevent consideration of a post-hearing commissioner application. On that basis, the trial court was legally entitled to receive the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Trial Court could receive an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner after the suit hearing had concluded and the matter had been reserved for judgment.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the practice of not entertaining interlocutory applications after arguments are concluded and the matter is reserved for judgment is a convention and not an inflexible rule. Where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist, the court may exercise its discretion to receive such an application to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The situation contemplated by the rule governing appearance after adjournment of an ex parte hearing is distinct from a case where the suit has already been closed for judgment, and that distinction does not assist a party challenging a post-hearing commissioner application.

Conclusion: The Trial Court was legally entitled to receive the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner after the hearing had closed and the matter had been reserved for judgment.

---