ASHOK M BHAT Vs. HARICHAND NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, which was framed and was to be answered, required evidence to be led. The plaintiffs filed their Affidavit of examination-in-chief, which was taken on record of this Court under the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Admissibility of the plaintiffs' documents came to be considered under that Rule. Commissioner came to be appointed for recording the cross-examination under certain specific directions issued in terms of the proviso to Order XVIII, Rule 4(2) of the CPC. The Commissioner has recorded the evidence of the plaintiffs under Order XVIII, Rule 4(3) and (4) of the CPC. Remuneration of the Commissioner was not fixed under Order XVIII, Rule 4(7) of the CPC under my order dated 13.4.2010.

(2.) It may be mentioned that the defendants refused to pay the fees of the Court Commissioner equally with the plaintiffs. Consequently, in the interest of justice, for the sake of expedition and to ascertain the real case of the parties, the plaintiffs'Advocate agreed to and was directed to pay the entire costs of the cross-examination of the plaintiffs before the Commissioner, including fees of the Commissioner for the first five dates of the Commission.

(3.) The Commission has proceeded. The plaintiffs have been cross-examined on two dates of hearing before the Commissioner.