Procedural Rectification: Delhi High Court Addresses Service Gaps and Commissioner Testimony

In a recent order in the case of Anil Tyagi & Anr. vs. Ramphal Tyagi & Ors. (CS(OS) 202/2018), the High Court of Delhi presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna addressed two critical procedural issues that frequently arise in long-standing civil litigation: the efficacy of electronic service of documents and the cross-examination of court-appointed Local Commissioners.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The litigation, which has been ongoing since 2018, recently faced friction concerning procedural conduct. Plaintiffs had moved an application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) , alleging that Defendant No. 9 had intentionally provided faulty email addresses to counsel, thereby hindering their appearance at the hearing of an interlocutory application.

Simultaneously, Defendant No. 9 filed an 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 2018, to subject her to cross-examination regarding her report filed in July of that year.

Resolving Service Irregularities

The court demonstrated a pragmatic approach toward the service dispute. While the Plaintiffs alleged deliberate misconduct by the defense, the counsel for Defendant No. 9 maintained the lapse was a result of a bona fide mistake. Emphasizing the importance of reliable communication in judicial proceedings, Justice Pushkarna accepted the apology and the undertaking provided by the defense counsel.

The Court noted: > "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 of the respective counsels."

The Question of Cross-Examining the Local Commissioner

With the plaintiffs’ evidence completed and the defendants’ evidence set to commence, the demand for cross-examining the LC has become a focal point. The defendants argue that the 2018 report contains ambiguities that require clarification through oral testimony.

Given that evidence is currently being recorded before a separate court-appointed body (Mr. J.R. Aryan, ADJ Retd.), the Court has adopted a cautious path to ensure fairness to all parties.

Key Observations

The judgment highlights the Court’s role in balancing party rights with procedural efficiency:

• On Professional Responsibility: "This Court notes that notice of the said application is yet to be issued... [after accepting the apology] the said counsel shall be careful and shall ensure, that the service of any application is done on the correct E-mail IDs."
• On the Need for Testimony: "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. Therefore, she needs to be cross-examined on the report."
• On Procedural Oversight: The Court recognized the transition of the case: "This Court is informed that plaintiffs’ evidence is already over and that the defendants’ evidence is to commence now."

Implications and Next Steps

The High Court has issued notices to both the plaintiffs and Ms. Suditi Batra herself, setting a structured timeline for the filing of replies and rejoinders. By directing the parties to file their responses within four weeks, with a subsequent period for rejoinders, the Court is ensuring that the process of examining the LC is conducted with full transparency.

The matter is slated for further consideration on April 7, 2026. This order serves as a reminder to legal practitioners that while technical mistakes may be met with leniency, the Court maintains a firm grip on the integrity and accuracy of the procedural record as trials advance toward their final stages.