Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.@mdashThe State is the revision petitioner. The Court below issued a Commission at the instance of the plaintiffs. The
Commission inspected the property and then claimed additional remuneration Rs.250/- was awarded as additional remuneration for the
Commissioner; but it was directed that the amount will be paid by the State. The State is aggrieved by this order. Even though the amount directed
to be paid is insignificant the Government Pleader submits that there is no justification to direct the State, the defendant to pay the amount of the
Commission in view of Order 26 Rule 15 which reads thus:-
15. Expenses of commission to be paid into Court-Before issuing any commission under this order, the Court may order such sum (if any) as it
thinks reasonable for the expenses of the commission to be within a time to be fixed paid into Court by the party at whose instance or for whose
benefit the commission is issued.
Order 26 Rule 15 control the discretion of the Court in fixing the commission remuneration only before issuing the Commission. It has nothing to
do with the sanction of additional remuneration or does not curtail the discretion of the Court to direct payment of the additional remuneration to be
paid by one or other party to the suit. It is difficult to agree with the submission of the Government Pleader that the additional remuneration due to
a Commission for the work done should not be directed to be paid by the defendant or by the State who is a party. In this view, this C.R.P. has no
merits and has to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.