Delhi High Court
Armour Security Pvt. Ltd vs Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. L Td on 20 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005772
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.12.2022
+ CM(M) 1443/2022, CM APPL. 55319/2022 & CM APPL.
55320/2022
ARMOUR SECURITY PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Aggarwal and Mr. Kunal Kalra and
Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Raghav, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
12:18:09
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005772
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
12:18:09
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005772
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.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DECEMBER 20, 2022/nd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
12:18:09
