YOGESH PARNAMI (HUF) vs SK MITTAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11th February 2025 + CM(M) 278/2025 YOGESH PARNAMI (HUF) .....Petitioner versus SK MITTAL .....Respondent Through: Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr. Harshit Jain, Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. Shubham Jain, Advocates. For the Respondent: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA J U D G M E N T ( ORAL) RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. CM APPL. 8178/2025 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of. CM(M) 278/2025 & CM APPL. 8177/2025 (stay) 1. The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)N-02, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit (Commercial) bearing CS DJ No. 638/2023, titled “Yogesh Parnami (HUF) Vs. S.K. Mittal”. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 278/2025 Page 1 of 6 By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Date:14.02.2025 17:20:54 2. The brief facts are that petitioner filed a Suit for Recovery of Rs. 6,80,000/- with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum till its realization. 3. Respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.10.2024. 4. On 17.12.2024 without request from the petitioner, the learned trial court suo moto, appointed a Local Commissioner for recording of evidence of the petitioner. The fee of the Local Commissioner was fixed as Rs. 5000/- per witness. Further fee of Rs. 1000/- per day was fixed for the Stenographer/Typist, in addition to, Rs. 500/- diet money for the Ahlmad/Nazir/Reader of the court for production of the record. 5. Vide order dated 10.01.2025, taking note of the fact that due to default on the part of the petitioner, evidence could not be recorded before the Local C