Delhi High Court
Sapna Julee vs Dr Sumit Prasad on 11 August, 2017
$~27.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2017 and CM APPL. 28827-28/2017
SAPNA JULEE ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. V.P.S. Charak and Ms. Shubhra Parashar,
Advocates
versus
DR SUMIT PRASAD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Aggarwal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 11.08.2017
1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2017 passed
by the Family Court, allowing an application filed by the
respondent/husband for appointment of a Local Commissioner to record the
evidence of the parties. Under the impugned order, Shri S.C. Malik (Retired
ADJ) has been appointed as a Local Commissioner to record the evidence of
the parties for which his fee and the out of pocket expenses have been
directed to be paid by the respondent/husband. The Local Commissioner has
been directed to record the evidence on a day-to-day basis, within the court
premises commencing from 08.08.2017 at 12 noon. Further, it has been
directed that in case an adjournment is given in an extreme circumstance,
after the conclusion of the cross-examination of the respondent, then the fee
for the said date would be borne by the appellant.
2. Mr. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/wife
states that the aforesaid order is causing great hardship to the appellant and
her counsel as the learned Local Commissioner has been recording the
evidence on a day-to-day basis effective from 08.08.2017, from 12 PM to
beyond 6 PM, thus causing great inconvenience to the counsels, who have
other cases to attend to, but are having to leave all work to remain present
for the conclusion of the cross-examination of the respondent (PW-1). We
are informed that the Local Commissioner has recorded the evidence for
three running dates and the matter is listed before him today at 12 Noon, for
further cross-examination of the respondent.
3. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/husband contends
that the appellant is deliberately dragging her feet and all kinds of irrelevant
questions are being put to the respondent during his cross-examination only
to delay the proceedings. He particularly refers to the cross-examination of
the respondent (PW-1), as recorded on 10.08.2017, where three pages relate
only to one photograph of the marriage ceremony of the parties. He states
that 117 photographs of the marriage ceremonies of the parties have been
filed by the respondent and having regard to the fact that the marriage itself
is not in dispute, the said questions are solely to delay conclusion of the
evidence. He further states that the respondent is working in Nairobi and
has taken leave for three days to come to Delhi for his cross-examination
and if the same is conducted at this pace, it will never conclude. We are
informed that as against the respondent's list of witnesses, wherein 3
witnesses have been cited, on her part, the appellant has cited 66 witnesses
in her list of witnesses, which clearly reflects an attempt to somehow drag
the proceedings before the learned Family Court.
4. The aforesaid submissions are vehemently disputed by learned
counsel for the appellant, who denied that any attempt is being made by the
appellant to delay conclusion of the evidence before the learned Local
Commissioner. He assures us that though 66 witnesses have been cited by
the appellant, the said list shall be pruned to about 10 witnesses.
5. Having gone through the evidence recorded before the Local
Commissioner and looking at the nature of the questions posed to the
respondent in his cross-examination, we deem it appropriate to grant
permission to the Local Commissioner to disallow all irrelevant questions.
To avoid confusion and crowding, parties shall ensure that only two
counsels appear for them before the Local Commissioner for the purpose of
recording the evidence. In the event, the Local Commissioner notices that
either of the parties is attempting to record the evidence on their mobile
phones or any other electronic device as alleged before us, he shall be
entitled to confiscate the instrument in question and retain it with him till the
evidence is concluded for the day.
6. After the cross-examination of the respondent (PW-1) is concluded,
the Local Commissioner is requested to record the remaining evidence on a
day-to-day basis, from 2 PM to 6 PM. In the event, either of the parties find
it inconvenient to appear on a daily basis before the Local Commissioner for
conclusion of the evidence in the case, they are at liberty to approach the
learned Family Court for seeking modification of the impugned order,
limited to the above aspect.
7. The appeal is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
DASTI to the counsels for the parties under the signatures of the
Court Master.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 11, 2017
rkb/pv
