Nikhil Gupta vs Tanu Gupta - (High Court of Delhi) (05 Jul 2022)

High Court can interfere into the order of Trial Court in the revisional jurisdiction only when Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law

MANU/DE/2305/2022

Civil

The present petition has been filed challenging the order whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the request of the Petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner.

The High Court can interfere into the order of the learned Trial Court in the revisional jurisdiction only on the following grounds: a. The Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; b. The Trial Court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or c. The Trial Court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

The discretion to appoint Local Commissioner may be exercised only in the cases as enumerated under the law. In view of the pendency of matters in the courts, the practice of appointing local commissioner for recording of evidence is being encouraged for the expeditious disposal of the matters. However, the trial Courts while issuing the commission has to take into account, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

The Trial Court is the best judge to decide on these issues as the trial is being conducted there. This Court in exercise of its revisional power cannot be seen as controlling the day to day affairs of the Trial Court. If, there is consent of the parties then of course, the courts are more inclined to issue the commission. However, if one of the parties is not agreeable then, the courts have to see the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. In such a case, if both the parties are not agreeable, the general experience is that the Local Commissioner faces lots of difficulties in recording of evidences. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Tags : APPOINTMENT LOCAL COMMISSIONER JURISDICTION