JUDGMENT 1. On 12th July, 1932, the husband of the Opposite Party No. 1 was appointed a Commissioner for local investigation in a certain suit on the application of the Petitioner. He was directed by the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet before whom the suit was pending to submit his report on 1st September, 1932. As the work was not finished within the time fixed by the Court, time was extended on several occasions. On 21st May, 1934, he informed the Court that he would submit his final report within six weeks from that date. He however failed to submit his report within that time. On 18th August, 1934, the Court directed him to file his report on 10th September, 1934, with an explanation of his delay. He however did not submit his report or explanation. On 28th November, 1934, he died, leaving the Opposite Party No. 1 as his sole heiress. Thereafter, the learned Subordinate Judge directed a fresh local investigation on the objection of one of the Defendants in the suit. Before the issue of the commission, the Court directed the Petitioner who is the Plaintiff in the suit to deposit a certain amount to cover the expenses of the commission under Or. 26, r. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Commissioner during his life-time was allowed by the Court to withdraw Rs. 700 from the said deposit. After his death the Opposite Party No. 1 applied to the learned Judge for payment to her of the balance of the fees due to her husband for the work in connection with the local investigation. The Petitioner opposed the application. The learned Judge however called for a report from the sheristadar of his Court and after hearing the parties, directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,050 in Court. The Petitioner thereupon obtained this Rule. 2. The only point for determination in the Rule is whether the learned Judge in view of the facts of the case was justified in making the order complained of. The learned Judge has not given any reasons for his order. It is not clear from his order whether he applied his mind to the facts of the case before he made the order. 3. The learned Judge has not given any reasons for his order. It is not clear from his order whether he applied his mind to the facts of the case before he made the order. 3. It is true that the Petitioner by moving the Court to appoint the Commissioner impliedly undertook to pay such remuneration to him for his services as would be finally determined by the Court. In order to determine what amount the Petitioner should be directed to pay, the Court has got to take into consideration not only the labour expended by the Commissioner but also the return Which the Petitioner has got for his money. The Court has also to consider whether the work was done efficiently and with due diligence in accordance with the directions of the Court. After the Commissioner with-drew Rs. 700 from Court, if as a matter of fact he was entitled to get more for his work, he should have suspended his work and brought the matter to the notice of the Court in order to enable the Court to examine his work and to determine approximately what further amount the Petitioner should be called upon to deposit. This was however not done. The object of requiring the expenses to be deposited beforehand under Or. 26, r. 15 of the CPC is that the Commissioner who is an officer of the Court may not be driven to a separate suit for recovery of his fees. Assuming that the Commissioner has power to realise his fees by execution of the order of the Court determining the amount of his fees, in the events that have happened in the present cause, the learned Judge alter ordering a de novo local investigation and thereby depriving the Petitioner of any return for his money, should not have directed the Petitioner by a summary order without giving any reasons to deposit Rs. 2,050 more for the expense of the commission, seeing that the value of the property involved is only Rs. 7,800 and the Petitioner is exactly in the same position as he was in 1930, though he has already deposited a large amount in Court. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts in a matter like this. But the peculiar facts of this case call for our interference in this matter. 7,800 and the Petitioner is exactly in the same position as he was in 1930, though he has already deposited a large amount in Court. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts in a matter like this. But the peculiar facts of this case call for our interference in this matter. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Judge directing the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,050 for the cost of the local investigation made by the deceased Commissioner. This order however will not preclude the Opposite Party No. 1 from taking such steps as are open to her under the law to recover any excess amount, if any, which may be justly due to her husband for the work done by him in connection with the local investigation in this case. In this connection we draw the attention of the learned Judge to the statutory provisions of the Code and rules framed by this Court relating to local investigation and the Commissioner's lees. There will be no order for costs in the Rule.