RAMESH BRIJ LAL SANTANI vs ANITA DALMIA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2025 + CM(M) 721/2025 & CM APPL. 23300-23302/2025 RAMESH BRIJ LAL SANTANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mittal, Advocate. versus ANITA DALMIA & ANR. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 23,10,277/-. 2. When the abovesaid suit was taken up by the concerned learned District Judge, Commercial Court on 28.10.2024, issues were framed and a Court Commissioner was appointed for recording of evidence. 3. As per said order, Ms. Deeksha, Advocate had been appointed as Local Commissioner. 4. Plaintiff has already examined PW-1-Roshan Lal Mittal. Plaintiff and wanted to examine Mr. Ramesh Brij Lal Santani as PW-2.His affidavit was also placed on record but since he was based in Nagpur, Plaintiff moved an application seeking his examination through video-conferencing, as per the applicable Rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 721/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:23.04.2025 18:53:57 5. Such request was acceded to by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.12.2024. 6. However, while passing the abovesaid order on 23.12.2024, directed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court that one Mr. Salil Shekhar, Advocate, who had already been appointed as a Local Commissioner, would record evidence and, therefore, there was implicit direction that the further evidence of the abvoesaid witness shall be recorded by i.e. Mr. Salil Shekhar instead of Ms. Deeksha who was rather having the record as well. 7. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff submits that the same plaintiff had filed another case which is also pending consideration before the same learne