KAMAL KANT RACHHOYA Vs. MANISH RACHHOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dtd. 19/1/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.18612/2023 in CS(OS) No.568/2021, whereby the respondent's application under Order XXVI Rule 2 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner to record evidence of the parties was allowed and a former District & Sessions Judge was appointed as the Local Commissioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the law laid down in the case of Nikhil Gupta vs. Tanu Gupta, 2022 SCC Online (Del) 1919, whereby it was held that the power to appoint a Local Commissioner has to be exercised carefully, and in a case where there is opposition to such appointment by any party, then the Courts should abstain from exercising such power in light of the potential difficulties that a Local Commissioner might face. He further states that no party can claim appointment of a Local Commissioner, as a matter of right.

(3.) This Court is of the view that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is contrary to the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 2018'), which provides that this Court shall appoint Registrars and Commissioners to record evidence. [See: Chapter XI Rule-1(ii) of Rules, 2018].