B N MULLICK Vs. RAM MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned single Jungle passed on 27th February, 1996 whereby the evidence in the two suits has been directed to be recorded on commission and Mr. V.K.Jain, Joint Registrar of this Court and a Member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service has been appointed as a Commissioner for recording of evidence in these matters.

(2.) The main challenge of Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellants, is that assuming Court had power to direct recording of evidence on commission despite non-existence of grounds enumerated in Order 26 Code of Civil Procedure, the power has not been exercised on sound judicial principles. The thrust of the argument of Mr. Sethi is that delay in disposal of the suits by itself is and cannot be the sole ground to direct the recording of evidence on commission. Learned Counsel contends that the only ground on which the impugned order was made was the likely delay in disposal of suits and thus the order is not sustainable in law.

(3.) After the insertion of Chapter X-A in 1991 in Delhi High Court (original side) Rules, the power of the court to direct recording of evidence on commission in cases outside the scope of Order XXVI Civil Procedure Code cannot be doubted. The Chapter introduced in 1991 reads as under: