Kothari Shaileshbhai Ramanlal HUF v. Samaksh Jain & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Jul 2025CM(M)/1160/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; CM(M) 1160/2025; Kothari Shaileshbhai Ramanlal HUF v. Samaksh Jain & Anr.; Manoj Jain J.; Local Commissioner; commission fee Rs.75,000/-; further payment Rs.25,000/-; order dated 15.05.2025 set aside; right to lead evidence closed and restored; opportunity to enter witness box restored; counter-claimant examination; defendant recovered, will appear personally; deposition date beyond three weeks; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the defendant/petitioner's opportunity to enter the witness box for recording of his evidence; impugned order dated 15.05.2025 set aside to that extent; Trial Court requested to fix a suitable deposition date, preferably beyond three weeks, enabling the petitioner to travel to Delhi. ¶¶38

Kothari Shaileshbhai Ramanlal HUF Vs Samaksh Jain & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant/counter-claimant petitioner's opportunity to be examined (enter the witness box), which stood closed by the Trial Court's order dated 15.05.2025 along with the dismissal of his application regarding the Local Commissioner, should be restored.

¶¶24

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with direction that the petitioner is permitted to enter the witness box for the purposes of his examination before the Trial Court.

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 15.05.2025 is set aside to the extent of the closure of the defendant's opportunity, and the defendant's opportunity to enter the witness box is restored.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is requested to give a suitable date, preferably beyond three weeks, so that the petitioner can travel to Delhi and is in a position to make his deposition before the Trial Court.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.), CM(M) 1160/2025, Kothari Shaileshbhai Ramanlal HUF v. Samaksh Jain & Anr. — Petition by the defendant/counter-claimant, an aged resident of Ahmedabad who had been permitted to be examined through a Local Commissioner (order dated 5 April 2025; fee Rs.75,000/-). By order dated 15.05.2025 the Trial Court declined to reduce the fee, dismissed his application, directed payment of a further Rs.25,000/- to the Local Commissioner and closed his right to lead evidence in the main suit and counter-claim. On 16.07.2025, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendant had substantially recovered and would appear in person, abandoning the commission; counsel for the respondents, without prejudice, raised no objection to one last and final opportunity. Holding: the petition was disposed of with the petitioner being permitted to enter the witness box, the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 being set aside to that extent, the defendant's opportunity to depose being restored, and the Trial Court requested to fix a suitable date, preferably beyond three weeks.

¶1

$~94

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 16^th July, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1160/2025 & CM APPL. 39132-39133/2025

¶5

KOTHARI SHAILESHBHAI RAMANLAL HUF .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Shashank Khurana, Mr. Deepak Verma and Mr. Abheesht Sharma, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

SAMAKSH JAIN & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prateek Goswami, Mr. Shashank Garg, Ms. Shubhika and Ms. Manju Dahiya, Advocates

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

When the present petition was taken up on 07.07.2025, the following

¶12

order was passed: -

¶13

“ 1. The present petition has been filed by the defendant /counterclaimant.

¶14

2. Since, the concerned defendant/counter-claimant, who is residing in Ahmedabad, was stated to be an aged person and on account of his ill-health, he was not permitted to travel to Delhi, on the basis of the application moved by the defendant/counter-claimant, a Local Commissioner was appointed.

¶15

3. Reference in this regard be made to the order dated 5^th April, 2025. 4. However, before the Commission could be executed, an application was moved seeking modification of said order and the petitioner wanted some reduction in fee fixed by the learned Trial Court towards said commission.

¶16

5. The fee of the Local Commissioner was Rs.75,000/-.

¶17

6. When the learned Trial Court took up the aforesaid matter on 15^th May, 2025, it declined to interfere and since, the Local Commissioner also appeared before the learned Trial Court and apprised that the Commission could not be executed, keeping in mind the fact that he had to appear before the learned Trial Court with the abovesaid report, while dismissing the

¶18

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 10:50:58

¶19

CM(M) 1160/2025 1

¶20

abovesaid application, there was another direction to the defendant/counter-claimant to pay Local Commissioner a sum of Rs.25,000/-.

¶21

7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the fee was exorbitant, particularly keeping the mind the nature of the claim, both in the suit and in the counter-claim.

¶22

8. However, after hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection if one opportunity is granted to them to examine the defendant/counter-claimant on the same terms and conditions as reflected in order dated 5^th April, 2025.

¶23

9. He, however, also submits that the cost of Rs.25,000/- paid to the Local Commissioner be also directed to be adjusted in such fee.

¶24

10. Fact, however, remains that while dismissing the abovesaid application moved by the petitioner, the learned Trial Court has also closed his right to lead evidence in the main suit as well as in the counter-claim.

¶25

11. None appears on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent despite advance notice.

¶26

12. The case is reportedly listed for tomorrow before the learned Trial Court.

¶27

13. Issue notice to the respondent through all permissible modes including dasti. Notice be also issued to counsel.

¶28

14. List on 16^th July, 2025.

¶29

15. Be shown in the Supplementary List.

¶30

16. The learned Trial Court is requested to defer the hearing to a date subsequent to the one given by this Court.”

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent appears, pursuant to service.

¶32

On the basis of query raised by the Court, learned counsel for petitioner submits that defendant has now, substantially, recovered and can travel to Delhi for the purposes of recording of his evidence. Therefore, he does not pray for execution of commission in question. He submits that if the learned Trial Court fixes up any date after three weeks from today, he would ensure that on such date, he appears before the learned Trial Court for recording of his evidence.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the intent of the petitioner herein is to delay the proceedings, he, without prejudice to his

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

CM(M) 1160/2025 2

¶36

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 10:50:58

¶37

rights and contentions, would have no objection if one last and final opportunity in this regard is granted to the petitioner.

¶38

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with direction that petitioner herein would be permitted to enter into the witness box for the purposes of his examination. The impugned order dated 15.05.2025, to the above extent, is set aside and opportunity of the defendant to enter into witness box is restored. Learned Trial Court is requested to give suitable date, preferably, beyond three weeks from today so that petitioner can travel to Delhi and is in a position to make deposition before the learned Trial Court.

¶39

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶40

JULY 16, 2025/ dr/shs

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

CM(M) 1160/2025 3

¶43

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 10:50:58

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 15.05.2025 of the learned Trial Court declining to reduce the Local Commissioner's fee, dismissing the petitioner-defendant/counter-claimant's application, directing payment of a further Rs.25,000/- to the Local Commissioner and closing his right to lead evidence in the main suit and counter-claim; set aside by this Court to the extent of the closure of the right to enter the witness box.¶¶38
Learned Trial Court · 15.05.2025
Prior proceeding
As the defendant/counter-claimant, residing in Ahmedabad, was stated to be aged and unwell and unable to travel to Delhi, a Local Commissioner was appointed on his application (per order dated 5 April 2025).¶¶14
Prior proceeding
The fee of the Local Commissioner was fixed at Rs.75,000/- by the learned Trial Court.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
When the Trial Court took up the modification application on 15 May 2025 it declined to interfere with the fee; the Local Commissioner had apprised the Trial Court that the Commission could not be executed.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Upon dismissal of the petitioner's application, the Trial Court additionally directed the defendant/counter-claimant to pay the Local Commissioner a sum of Rs.25,000/-.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
Alongside dismissal of the application, the Trial Court also closed the petitioner's right to lead evidence in the main suit as well as in the counter-claim.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
When the petition was taken up on 07.07.2025, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent through all permissible modes including dasti, and to counsel; the case was listed for the following day before the Trial Court.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
By interim order dated 07.07.2025, the Trial Court was requested to defer the hearing to a date subsequent to the date fixed by this Court (listing on 16.07.2025).¶¶30
Prior proceeding
At the hearing on 16.07.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendant had substantially recovered, could travel to Delhi, and therefore did not pray for execution of the commission.¶¶32

Kothari Shaileshbhai Ramanlal HUF v. Samaksh Jain & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothari Shaileshbhai Ramanlal HUF v. Samaksh Jain & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sdmc Vs Deepak Mehta

Rajiv Gupta and Anr. Vs Prabha Devi and Anr.

Smt. Vimla Chopra (Nee Kwatra) Vs Lall G. Kwatra and Ors.

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Suresh Chand Jain & Anr.

Charan Dass & Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar

Piyush Goyal Vs Om Prakash & Anr.

Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee Vs Narjeet Singh Sachdeva & Anr.

Manisha Rao Vs Asjeet Singh Lamba

Sdmc Vs Deepak Mehta

Rajiv Gupta and Anr. Vs Prabha Devi and Anr.

Smt. Vimla Chopra (Nee Kwatra) Vs Lall G. Kwatra and Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs Kanahiya Lal and Anr.

S. Kanwal Preet Singh Vs Sir Sobha Singh and Sons (P.) Ltd.

Aknasha Gupta Kampani Vs Jeetender Kampani