Delhi High Court Addresses Procedural Lapses and Local Commissioner Cross-Examination in Ongoing Property Dispute - 2026-02-19

Procedural Hurdles Met with Judicial Intervention in Ongoing Tyagi Property Dispute

The High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna, recently tackled procedural friction arising in Anil Tyagi & Anr. v. Ramphal Tyagi & Ors. , a long-standing civil suit. The proceedings, held on February 19, 2026, focused on ensuring the integrity of service and addressing the practical challenges of cross-examining court-appointed experts in ongoing litigation.

The Clash Over Digital Service

The hearing began with an application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) . The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 9 had intentionally provided inaccurate email IDs for the service of court documents, effectively preventing opposing counsel from appearing on the scheduled date.

In response, counsel for Defendant No. 9 maintained that the use of incorrect email addresses was a "bona fide mistake" and committed to exercising greater vigilance in future filings. Recognizing the explanation, the court accepted the apology and the undertaking, effectively neutralizing the conflict to allow the substantive matter to proceed.

Summoning the Field Expert

The core of the day’s deliberation involved Defendant No. 9’s application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking to summon Ms. Suditi Batra, a Local Commissioner (LC) appointed by the court in May 2018.

The defendants argued that the report submitted by the LC in July 2018 contained ambiguities that necessitated direct clarification through cross-examination. With the plaintiffs’ evidence phase recently concluded, the court is currently transitioning into the defendants’ evidence stage, led by a separate court-appointed official, Mr. J.R. Aryan (Retd. ADJ). The requested cross-examination of the original LC is viewed as a necessary component for the defendants to build their rebuttal case.

Key Observations

The High Court’s directives reflect its commitment to maintaining the decorum and technical integrity of the civil process:

• "This Court accepts the apology made by learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 9 and accepts the undertaking that in the future, the said counsel shall be careful and shall ensure, that the service of any application or any other affidavit/pleading, is done on the correct E-mail IDs."
• "Defendant nos. 8 to 11 have already filed their objection to the said report of the LC, which indicates the report of the LC is not clear on certain aspects."
• "Accordingly, issue notice to the plaintiffs, as well as to the learned LC, i.e., Ms. Suditi Batra."

Path Toward Resolution

By issuing notice to the plaintiffs and the Local Commissioner, the court has initiated the formal inquiry into whether the 2018 report requires further scrutiny in the witness box. The parties have been granted a four-week window to file their replies, with rejoinders due two weeks thereafter. The matter is now set for further consideration on April 7, 2026.

This case serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities involved in long-running civil litigation, where the mechanical aspects of court filings and the precise verification of historical expert findings remain vital to ensuring a fair trial for all involved parties.