Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mrs. Anita Kumari Gupta vs Late Ved Bhushan Thr. Lrs. . on 20 July, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
ITEM NO.64 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 4479/2015
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22/12/2014
IN FAO NO. 538/2014 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)
MRS. ANITA KUMARI GUPTA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
LATE VED BHUSHAN THR. LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 20/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Karan S. Thukral, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Dayal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Vinod Lakhina
Date: 2015.07.21
17:42:52 IST [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Reason:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5479 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave petition (Civil) No.4479/2015] ANITA KUMARI GUPTA ...APPELLANT VERSUS VED BHUSHAN (D) THR. LRS.
& ORS. ...RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By consent order dated 16th October, 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi, evidence in CS (CS) No.1093 of 2011 filed by the present appellant as plaintiff was directed to be recorded by a Court appointed Commissioner. Taking the ground that the appellant cannot afford the expenses involved, an application was filed for recall of the order dated 16th October, 2014, which was refused. Against the said refusal, an appeal i.e. FAO(OS) NO.538 of 2014 was filed which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2014 giving rise to the present appeal.
2
3. The only ground taken by the appellant is that she cannot afford the expenses involved in the recording of evidence of the Court appointed Commissioner. A statement has been made by the learned counsel for the respondents that they will bear the entire expenses of the Court appointed Commissioner.
4. In view of the above, we reiterate the order of the High Court of Delhi and direct the recording of evidence by the Court appointed Commissioner with the modification that payment of the entire cost and expenses of the Court Commissioner will be made by the respondents. The proceedings in the suit shall be conducted expeditiously.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI JULY 20, 2015