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
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Armour Security Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CM(M) 1443 of 2022, CM Appl. 55319 of 2022 & CM Appl. 55320 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2022




The court affirmed that the fee for a Local Commissioner must be reasonable and not impose undue financial strain on the parties, emphasizing the necessity of party consent for recording of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Modification of earlier order regarding Local Commissioner fees - The petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of the application for modification of fee for a Local Commissioner was upheld - The court found the original fee of Rs.25,000/- per witness excessive. (Paras 2, 7, 10)

(B) Evidence Recording - Appointment of Local Commissioner - The obligation to record evidence lies with the Civil Court, and parties cannot be compelled to proceed without consent. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to modify the fees for a newly appointed Local Commissioner, which was previously set at Rs.25,000/- per witness. The respondent agreed that the fee was excessive and a lower fee of Rs.3,000/- was proposed.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the previous order regarding fees and set the new fee at Rs.3,000/- per sitting.

Issues: The primary issues were related to the appropriateness of the fee set by the Local Commissioner and the extent of parties' consent in the recording of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that while appointing a Local Commissioner is permissible, it cannot be done at a financial burden to the parties and modified the fee based on reasonableness.

Result: The impugned order quashed and set new fee.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the order on local commissioner's fees (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. agreement on reasonable fees by both parties (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis on burden and consent (Para 8)
4. setting aside the previous order and fixing new fees (Para 9 , 10)
5. final disposal of the petition with terms (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. With the consent of parties, the present petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.12.2022, whereby, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the application under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the earlier order dated 24.05.2022 whereby, the recording of evidence was to be carried before the Local Commissioner, who was to be paid Rs.25,000/- per witness as his fee.

3. Learned counsel submits that in view of the recusal of the Local Commissioner appointed earlier, the learned Trial Court appointed a new Local Commissioner fixing the fees as Rs.25,000/- per witness, as fixed earlier.

4. Learned counsel submits that by way of application under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, and on the basis that the new Local Commissioner was an Advocate with only five years of experience, it was prayed that a reasonable fees of Rs.3,000/- per sitting may be fixed for recording of evidence of the parties.

5. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court did not find any reasons to modify the order and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Ajay Raghav, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

7. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, appears to be a justifiable ground coupled with the fact that Mr. Ajay Raghav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent also agrees that the fee of Rs.25,000/- as fixed earlier is way too high and Rs.3,000/- per hearing is a reasonable amount, which the parties will be able to afford without any financial constraint.

8. In the opinion of this Court too, the obligation of recording the evidence is originally with the Civil Court and permitting the recording of evidence through a Local Commissioner is an exception. Moreover, parties/litigants cannot be compelled to get the evidence recorded without their consent and willingness through a Court appointed Local Commissioner, nor can they be directed or compelled to pay an amount which may not be within their budget.

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as consent by the learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned order dated 13.12.2022 is quashed and set aside.

10. This Court fixes the fee as Rs.3,000/- per sitting to the Local Commissioner for recording of evidence of the parties, as consented to between the parties, as also on the reasoning given by this Court.

11. The petition along with pending applications is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

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