JUDGMENT :

Manmohan, J.

I.A. 6955/2017

Present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking expeditious recording of the evidence in a time bound manner. The plaintiff also seeks a direction to the effect that the recording of evidence is conducted in an orderly, fair, dignified and bona fide manner.

2. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff states that in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of defendant no.1, the plaintiff has been asked numerous irrelevant and ex facie scandalous questions. He states that certain questions have been ex facie abusive, defamatory with a clear design to insult and/or annoy the plaintiff.

3. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff further states that during the cross-examination on 17th May, 2017, the counsel for defendant no.1 had used the abusive, offensive and per se defamatory words like “crook” and “guilty of crimes and crookery” against the applicant/plaintiff. He points out that the applicant/plaintiff has already filed a separate suit against the defendant no. 1 herein for damages, being CS(OS) No.236/2017 for the said malicious insinuations.

4. He states that out of 100 questions put to the plaintiff, 24 questions have been disallowed by the Joint Registrar till date. He also states that on 17th May, 2017, of the seven questions asked by the counsel for the defendant no. 1, the Joint Registrar had disallowed the five questions. This, according to him, proves that the attitude and intention of the defendants is to delay the conclusion of the evidence. He further states that the counsel representing defendant no.1 has attempted to browbeat, intimidate and scandalize the plaintiff.

5. Per contra, Mr.Anoop George Chaudhari, learned senior counsel for defendant no.1 states that the present application is misconceived as the present suit is moving at a pace faster than most of the suits pending on the original side of this Court. He further states that a perusal of the order sheet would reveal that the defendants have never delayed the proceedings in the present suit and in the garb of present application the plaintiff cannot be permitted to scuttle the process of cross examination

6. Mr.Chaudhari emphasizes that the defendant no.1 vide his letters dated 02nd June 2017 and 19th July, 2017 informed his Advocate on Record and previous senior counsel that no instructions had ever been given at any point of time to use the objectionable words like “crook” and “guilty of crimes and crookery” against the plaintiff.

7. He lastly submits that as the proceedings before the Joint Registrar for recording of evidence has been delegated by the Original Side Rules of the Delhi High Court, no cause of action arises for any interference by the delegator (High Court) in the proceedings going on before the delegatee (Joint Registrar).

8. In rejoinder, Mr.Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff points out that the previous senior counsel for the defendant no.1 had stated before the Joint Registrar on 17th May, 2017 that he had called the plaintiff “crook” on the specific instruction of defendant no.1. He prays that notice be issued to the previous senior counsel of defendant no.1.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that cross-examination is to be conducted in accordance with law and the dignity of the Court has to be maintained. No person who has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court can be subjected to offensive, scandalous and/or abusive language in the garb of cross-examination.

10. Since the Joint Registrar is recording the evidence under the supervision of this Court as a delegatee of this Court, if a witness or party is subjected to abuse or humiliation during the process of cross-examination, the Court can surely intervene.

11. Questions in cross-examination can be put only in the course of administration of law. Indecent, scandalous and abusive questions are prohibited even under the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Act?). This Cour