1. The petitioner-New Delhi District Legal Services Authority [“the Authority”] has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against two orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 58739/2016 [Jaspal S Shergil vs. KMS Shergil & Ors.]. The Authority was not a party to the suit.
2. The dispute concerns payment of fees to the Local Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court to record evidence in the suit. By the first
impugned order, dated 14.12.2017, the Trial Court disposed of an application filed by the defendant No.3 in the suit (respondent No. 4 in this petition) for exemption from paying the fees of the Local Commissioner, by directing the Authority to make payment of the fees. By the second impugned order, dated 30.07.2019, the Trial Court disposed of an application filed by the Authority for review/modification of order dated 14.12.2017 with certain directions.
3. The main contention advanced by the Authority is that it maintains a panel of Local Commissioners and also prescribes the fees payable by it to the Local Commissioners. A copy of the schedule of fees has been placed on record, which reveals that the Authority has prescribed fees for recording of evidence by Local Commissioners separately for courts presided over by officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services and Delhi Judicial Services, and also for cases in which the Local Commissioner is a retired judge
4. According to Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, learned counsel for the Authority, the Authority has no impediment in providing legal aid to eligible beneficiaries towards appointment of a Local Commissioner for this purpose. However, the difficulty arises when the courts appoint persons who are not empanelled by the Authority and the prescribed fees are beyond the scope of the Authority. He submits that the Authority does not pay for legal services provided by any person who is not on its panel. 5. During the course of hearing, Mr. MK Singh, learned counsel for plaintiff in the suit (arrayed as respondent No.1 herein) and Mr. Saleem Hasan, learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit (arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein), state that the evidence in the present
case has been completed and the suit has, in fact, been disposed of
6. As such, the only issue that remains pending is with regard to the remainder of the fees to be paid to the Local Commissioner, who had been appointed by the Trial Court in this case. In these circumstances, Mr. Khan submits that the Court may give directions with regard to the appointment of Local Commissioners by the Trial Courts at the expense of the Authority for future cases, but the fees of the Local Commissioner appointed in the present case will be cleared, as a special case.
7. In the impugned order dated 30.07.2019, the learned Trial Court has noted the communication dated 14.03.2018, received from the National Legal Services Authority, which confirms that payment of fees of Local Commissioners is covered under Section 2(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is also stated therein that an eligible beneficiary would not be disentitled to free legal services in this regard, even if he/she has engaged a private counsel to file or defend a suit. Mr. Khan confirms that the Authority accepts this position.
8. The only other direction required in the present case relates to future cases. In view of the position outlined above, it would be appropriate for courts to appoint Local Commissioners at the expense of the Authority from the panel maintained by it, and at the prescribed fees. The proper course therefore, when the Trial Courts are approached for such assistance, would be to issue notice to the Authority to examine the eligibility of the litigant for legal services and to appoint a Local Commissioner from the panel of the Authority at the prescribed schedule of fees. Such a procedure would obviate any difficulties faced by the Authority and yet provide required legal aid to eligible beneficiaries.
9. The petition, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of with these directions. 10. The petitioner-Authority, through the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, is at liberty to communicate this order to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judges of the District Courts, so that it may be brought to the notice of the concerned Trial Courts.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice PRATEEK JALAN,
FEBRUARY 8, 2022/
