Delhi High Court
Shanti Mukand Hospital vs Trio Tree Technologies Pvt Ltd on 25 January, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000656
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.01.2023
+ CM(M) 117/2023 & CM APP No. 3739/2023
SHANTI MUKAND HOSPITAL ..... Petitioner
versus
TRIO TREE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. K. Makhija, Ms. Sumedha Dua and
Ms. Reeta Yagnik, Advs.
For the Respondent : Ms. Zainab Ansari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 3739/2023-EXEMP.C/COPY
1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified
copies of the annexures.
2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 117/2023 & CM APPL. 3738/2023-STAY
4. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 07.11.2022 and
14.12.2022 in CS(comm.) 227/21 titled "Shanti Mukund Hospital vs.
M/s Trio Tree Technologies P Ltd & Ors." whereby the learned Trial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:34:42
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000656
Court had on the assumed failure of the absence of the main counsel for
the parties to be present on 07.11.2022, though witness was present,
appointed local commissioner to record the evidence of the parties and
fixed the fees of Rs.20,000/- per witness and also fixed the schedule of
examination of the plaintiff as well as for the defendant for two dates
each.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel appearing for the respondents jointly submits that a joint
application under Section 151 CPC, 1908 was filed seeking recall,
reconsideration and modification of the order dated 07.11.2022 praying
inter alia that the appointment of the local commissioner and the
direction for conducting recording of evidence of the witnesses before
the learned Local Commissioner be modified and the recording of
evidence be carried out before the learned Trial Court.
6. Learned counsel also submitted that in the joint application a
further reason to recall the order was, that the parties would not be able
to afford the fees of Rs.20,000/- per witness as directed vide the order
dated 07.11.2022.
7. Learned counsel submit that despite the aforesaid submissions
and pleadings, vide the impugned order dated 14/12/2022, the learned
Trial Court dismissed the said application with cost of Rs.5,000/- each.
8. This Court has, on the various occasions, emphasised that primary
responsibility of recording of evidence lies with the Court in seisin of
the lis and the same cannot be transferred to local commissioners, even
if the matters pertain to a Commercial Courts Act, 2015, unless there are
compelling reasons.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:34:42
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000656
9. This Court has also perused the impugned orders dated
07.11.2022 and 14.12.2022 and it appears that the learned Trial Court is
in undue haste to complete the proceedings.
10. The learned Trial Court ought to be more sensitive to these
aspects, specially when both the parties are ad idem to the fact that
recording of evidence ought to be carried out before it, as well as the
inability to pay such high fees of Rs.20,000/- per witness. This
contention ought to have been considered by the learned Trial Court.
11. Be that as it may.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the orders dated 07.11.2022 and
14.12.2022 is quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed
to record the evidence of the parties before it in all earnest.
13. It is informed that next date before the learned Trial Court is
16.02.2023. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on
16.02.2023 and shall lead their evidence in accordance with law.
14. The petition is disposed of as no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J .
JANUARY 25, 2023/ms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:34:42
