KOTHARI SHAILESHBHAI RAMANLAL HUF vs SAMAKSH JAIN & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16th July, 2025 + CM(M) 1160/2025 & CM APPL. 39132-39133/2025 KOTHARI SHAILESHBHAI RAMANLAL HUF .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shashank Khurana, Mr. Deepak Verma and Mr. Abheesht Sharma, Advocates versus SAMAKSH JAIN & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prateek Goswami, Mr. Shashank Garg, Ms. Shubhika and Ms. Manju Dahiya, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. When the present petition was taken up on 07.07.2025, the following order was passed: - “1. The present petition has been filed by the defendant /counter- claimant. 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. 3. Reference in this regard be made to the order dated 5th 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. 5. The fee of the Local Commissioner was Rs.75,000/-. 6. When the learned Trial Court took up the aforesaid matter on 15th 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1160/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:18.07.2025 10:50:58 abovesaid application, there was another direction to