SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Shiv Balak Goswami - Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Puri - Respondent
CM(M)-IPD 13 of 2022
Decided On : 17-05-2022




The court emphasized the necessity of party consent in procedural matters and the implications of prior undertakings given in court.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court addressed the procedure regarding the recording of evidence by a Local Commissioner, highlighting issues of consent and procedural compliance. (Para 4)

(B) Consent and Procedure - The court discussed the importance of party consent in procedural directions issued by the trial court. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to set aside trial court orders directing evidence recording by a Local Commissioner, claiming lack of consent and objection to the process. (Para 3)

Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court noted that both parties had agreed to the Local Commissioner recording evidence, standing by its earlier order. (Para 6)

Issues: The principal issue was whether the trial court directive to record evidence by a Local Commissioner was valid without explicit party consent. (Para 4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that consent or objection to procedural directions must be duly recognized, particularly when parties have provided undertakings in court. (Para 8)

Result: Petition disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty granted to file an appropriate application.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 19086/2022 & 19087/2022 (Exemptions)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

CM(M)-IPD 13/2022 & CM APPL. 19085/2022 (Stay)

3. By way of the present petition, Petitioner seeks setting aside of the orders dated 15.12.2021 and 31.03.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS(COMM) 193/2020.

4. Grievance raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that vide the impugned orders, the learned Trial Court has directed that the evidence be recorded by the Local Commissioner, appointed by the Court whereas the parties never consented to the same and on the contrary raised an objection. It is submitted that the said direction is also contrary to law.

5. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned orders.

6. Perusal of the order dated 15.12.2021 shows that the learned Trial Court has recorded that both the parties agreed that evidence may be recorded by a Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. Pursuant thereto the Court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed the parties to appear before the learned Local Commissioner on 18.12.2021. The order was not challenged by the Petitioner.

7. When the matter was listed on 31.03.2022, both the counsels undertook to appear before the learned Local Commissioner and requested that the evidence be recorded as per the directions issued vide order dated 15.12.2021.

8. Faced with the question by the Court, as to why the writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders, after giving an undertaking before the learned Trial Court to appear before the learned Local Commissioner, for recording of evidence, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate application seeking recall of the impugned orders, before the Trial Court.

9. Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, along with the pending application, with liberty to file an application, as prayed for, in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top