ANIL K. AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) claims the following reliefs:

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner, i) that in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, evidence of witnesses residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court was to be ordinarily recorded by the Judge in the open Court; ii) however vide amendment with effect from 1st July, 2002 of the CPC by incorporation of Rule 19 to Order XVIII and Rule 4A to Order XXVI, the Courts were empowered to, instead of examining the witnesses in Court, direct the witnesses to be examined on Commission; iii) that simultaneously to the amendment aforesaid to the CPC, the Notaries Act, 1952 was also amended with effect from 17th December, 1999 adding "to act as a Commissioner and record evidence in any civil or criminal trial if so directed by any court or authority" to the functions prescribed of a Notary; iv) that in the course of his practice as a lawyer before the Civil Courts at Delhi, it has come to the notice of the petitioner that Courts are appointing practicing advocates and retired Judicial Officers as Commissioners for recording of evidence of witnesses, ignoring the provisions of the Notaries Act; v) that only the persons who satisfy the qualifications laid down in the Notaries Rules, 1956 amended in the year 1997 are eligible to be appointed as „Notary?; vi) that thus only those persons who are registered as „Notary? under the Notaries Act are competent to function as Commissioners? for recording of evidence and the Courts cannot appoint just any advocate or retired judicial officer as a Commissioner to record evidence.

(3.) WE have heard the petitioner appearing in person.