Amar Nidhi Aggarwal Amar Nidhi Aggarwal v. and Others Pushpa Gupta and Others
Case Details
(O&M) CR-6482-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR-6482-2025 (O&M) CR Decided on :- 15.09.2025 Decided on : Amar Nidhi Aggarwal Amar Nidhi Aggarwal ....Petitioner VERSUS and Others Pushpa Gupta and Others ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Adityajit Singh Chadha Mr. Adityajit Singh Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. , Advocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
change in circumstances is manifest. It is settled law that principles of res judicata change in circumstances is manifest. It is settled law that principles of res judicata change in circumstances is manifest. It is settled law that principles of res judicata change in circumstances is manifest. It is settled law that principles of res judicata hich are dependent on are not rigidly applicable to interlocutory orders which are dependent on are not rigidly applicable to interlocutory orders w are not rigidly applicable to interlocutory orders w subsequent events. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the present subsequent events. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the present subsequent events. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the present subsequent events. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the present application is barred by res judicata is not tenable. application is barred by res judicata is not tenable. application is barred by res judicata is not tenable. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.15 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6482-2025 (O&M) -4- - 7. As regards the invocation of Order 10 CPC, it is correct that Order 10 As regards the invocation of Order 10 CPC, it is correct that Order 10 As regards the invocation of Order 10 CPC, it is correct that Order 10 As regards the invocation of Order 10 CPC, it is correct that Order 10 parties by the Court and does not provide for recording of relates to examination of parties by the Court and does not provide for recording of parties by the Court and does not provide for recording of relates to examination of evidence through a Local Commissioner. However, mere wrong mention of a evidence through a Local Commissioner. However, mere wrong mention of a evidence through a Local Commissioner. However, mere wrong mention of a evidence through a Local Commissioner. However, mere wrong mention of a provision in an application would not disentitle the party from relief if the provision in an application would not disentitle the party from relief if the provision in an application would not disentitle the party from relief if the provision in an application would not disentitle the party from relief if the on. The power to direct recording of substantive right exists under another provision. The power to direct recording of on. The power to direct recording of substantive right exists under another provisi evidence through a commission flows from Order 18 Rule 16, Order 18 Rule 19 evidence through a commission flows from Order 18 Rule 16, Order 18 Rule 19 evidence through a commission flows from Order 18 Rule 16, Order 18 Rule 19 evidence through a commission flows from Order 18 Rule 16, Order 18 Rule 19 and also Order 26 Rule 1 CPC. Once the Court is satisfied from medical record and and also Order 26 Rule 1 CPC. Once the Court is satisfied from medical record and and also Order 26 Rule 1 CPC. Once the Court is satisfied from medical record and and also Order 26 Rule 1 CPC. Once the Court is satisfied from medical record and ithout risk to health, the age of the witness that attendance in court is not possible without risk to health, the age of the witness that attendance in court is not possible w age of the witness that attendance in court is not possible w Court can direct evidence to be recorded through commission. Wrong mentioning Court can direct evidence to be recorded through commission. Wrong mentioning Court can direct evidence to be recorded through commission. Wrong mentioning Court can direct evidence to be recorded through commission. Wrong mentioning Accordingly, the case of Order 10 CPC in the application is therefore immaterial. Accordingly, the case of Order 10 CPC in the application is therefore immaterial. of Order 10 CPC in the application is therefore immaterial. the facts and Kapil Corepacks Private Ltd.(supra) is not applicable to the facts and Kapil Corepacks Private Ltd.(supra) law cited in Kapil Corepacks Private Ltd.(supra) circumstances of the present case as the cited law relates to the provisions of Order circumstances of the present case as the cited law relates to the provisions of Order circumstances of the present case as the cited law relates to the provisions of Order circumstances of the present case as the cited law relates to the provisions of Order 10 CPC. 8. The contention that the house where the plaintiff resides is itself in The contention that the house where the plaintiff resides is itself in The contention that the house where the plaintiff resides is itself in The contention that the house where the plaintiff resides is itself in plaintiff is dispute also does not impress this Court. Since it is admitted that the plaintiff is dispute also does not impress this Court. Since it is admitted that the dispute also does not impress this Court. Since it is admitted that the residing there, the mere fact that it is disputed property does not render recording residing there, the mere fact that it is disputed property does not render recording residing there, the mere fact that it is disputed property does not render recording residing there, the mere fact that it is disputed property does not render recording of her statement there illegal or improper. The Local Commissioner, being an of her statement there illegal or improper. The Local Commissioner, being an of her statement there illegal or improper. The Local Commissioner, being an of her statement there illegal or improper. The Local Commissioner, being an officer of the Court, will conduct proceedings with due decorum and impartiality. officer of the Court, will conduct proceedings with due decorum and impartiality. officer of the Court, will conduct proceedings with due decorum and impartiality. officer of the Court, will conduct proceedings with due decorum and impartiality. 9. chief of the It is also not disputed that the affidavit in examination-in-chief of the It is also not disputed that the affidavit in examination It is also not disputed that the affidavit in examination plaintiff has already been filed and a copy thereof is with the opposite party. The plaintiff has already been filed and a copy thereof is with the opposite party. The plaintiff has already been filed and a copy thereof is with the opposite party. The plaintiff has already been filed and a copy thereof is with the opposite party. The affidavit will be tendered before the Local Commissioner as part of the evidence of affidavit will be tendered before the Local Commissioner as part of the evidence of affidavit will be tendered before the Local Commissioner as part of the evidence of affidavit will be tendered before the Local Commissioner as part of the evidence of the plaintiff, and cross examination will also be conducted before the Local tiff, and cross-examination will also be conducted before the Local examination will also be conducted before the Local Commissioner in presence of both parties. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the Commissioner in presence of both parties. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the Commissioner in presence of both parties. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the Commissioner in presence of both parties. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.15 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6482-2025 (O&M) -5- - 10. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Laxmibai (dead) through LRs (supra) and Bishnupriya Devi (supra) Laxmibai (dead) through LRs is not and Bishnupriya Devi (supra), is not as the said cited case applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the said cited case applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case law releates to immediate recording of evidence prior to commencement of trial on law releates to immediate recording of evidence prior to commencement of trial on law releates to immediate recording of evidence prior to commencement of trial on law releates to immediate recording of evidence prior to commencement of trial on the ground of old age or witness suffering from serious ailment whereas in the case the ground of old age or witness suffering from serious ailment whereas in the case the ground of old age or witness suffering from serious ailment whereas in the case the ground of old age or witness suffering from serious ailment whereas in the case evidence of in hand, the trial has already commenced and the case is fixed for evidence of in hand, the trial has already commenced and the case is fixed for in hand, the trial has already commenced and the case is fixed for plaintiff. . 11. Considering the age of the plaintiff, her fresh medical condition as Considering the age of the plaintiff, her fresh medical condition as Considering the age of the plaintiff, her fresh medical condition as Considering the age of the plaintiff, her fresh medical condition as evidenced by record placed before the trial court, and the mandate to avoid denial evidenced by record placed before the trial court, and the mandate to avoid denial evidenced by record placed before the trial court, and the mandate to avoid denial evidenced by record placed before the trial court, and the mandate to avoid denial , this Court is of justice to a party on account of inability to physically attend court, this Court is of justice to a party on account of inability to physically attend court of justice to a party on account of inability to physically attend court of the view that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in of the view that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in of the view that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in of the view that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in appointing a Local Commissioner to record her evidence at her residence. appointing a Local Commissioner to record her evidence at her residence. appointing a Local Commissioner to record her evidence at her residence. Conclusion 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality or material For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality or material For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality or material For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. The trial court rightly considered the Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. The trial court rightly considered the Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. The trial court rightly considered the Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. The trial court rightly considered the subsequent change in circumstances and the medical condition of the plaintiff, and subsequent change in circumstances and the medical condition of the plaintiff, and subsequent change in circumstances and the medical condition of the plaintiff, and subsequent change in circumstances and the medical condition of the plaintiff, and cretion to allow recording of her statement through Local exercised its discretion to allow recording of her statement through Local cretion to allow recording of her statement through Local exercised its dis Commissioner. Wrong mentioning of Order 10 CPC does not vitiate the order, as Commissioner. Wrong mentioning of Order 10 CPC does not vitiate the order, as Commissioner. Wrong mentioning of Order 10 CPC does not vitiate the order, as Commissioner. Wrong mentioning of Order 10 CPC does not vitiate the order, as the power exists under the CPC for such appointment. The affidavit already filed the power exists under the CPC for such appointment. The affidavit already filed the power exists under the CPC for such appointment. The affidavit already filed the power exists under the CPC for such appointment. The affidavit already filed will be formally tendered before the Local Commissioner and cross will be formally tendered before the Lo examination cal Commissioner and cross-examination will be conducted in presence of counsel for both parties. Recording the evidence will be conducted in presence of counsel for both parties. Recording the evidence will be conducted in presence of counsel for both parties. Recording the evidence will be conducted in presence of counsel for both parties. Recording the evidence at the residence of the plaintiff, where she admittedly resides, does not cause at the residence of the plaintiff, where she admittedly resides, does not cause at the residence of the plaintiff, where she admittedly resides, does not cause at the residence of the plaintiff, where she admittedly resides, does not cause prejudice to any party. prejudice to any party. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.15 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6482-2025 (O&M) -6- - 13. ision petition is dismissed. The impugned Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The impugned ision petition is dismissed. The impugned Accordingly, the civil rev order dated 26.08.2025 dated 26.08.2025 is upheld. 14.
Arguments
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.1. for respondent No.1. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil The present civil The present civil The present civil revision petition has been revision petition has been revision petition has been revision petition has been filed by filed by filed by filed by the the the the petitioner/defendant No. 4 challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the petitioner/defendant No. 4 challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the petitioner/defendant No. 4 challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the petitioner/defendant No. 4 challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Court, Chandigarh, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Court, Chandigarh, whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Court, Chandigarh, whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Court, Chandigarh, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order 10 CPC has been application filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order 10 CPC has been application filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order 10 CPC has been application filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order 10 CPC has been allowed and a Local Commissioner has been appointed to record her evidence at allowed and a Local Commissioner has been appointed to record her evidence at allowed and a Local Commissioner has been appointed to record her evidence at allowed and a Local Commissioner has been appointed to record her evidence at her residence on 16.09.2025. her residence on 16.09.2025. Brief Facts 2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff, an elderly lady of 84 years of age, The brief facts are that the plaintiff, an elderly lady of 84 years of age, The brief facts are that the plaintiff, an elderly lady of 84 years of age, The brief facts are that the plaintiff, an elderly lady of 84 years of age, had earlier filed an application under Order 18 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC had earlier filed an application under Order 18 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC had earlier filed an application under Order 18 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC had earlier filed an application under Order 18 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC the attesting witnesses of the for immediately recording her statement and that of the attesting witnesses of the for immediately recording her statement and that of for immediately recording her statement and that of , and also under Order 18 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for recording Will, and also under Order 18 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for recording , and also under Order 18 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for recording , and also under Order 18 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for recording her statement at home through a Local Commissioner, along with an application her statement at home through a Local Commissioner, along with an application her statement at home through a Local Commissioner, along with an application her statement at home through a Local Commissioner, along with an application TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.15 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6482-2025 (O&M) -2- - under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC filed by defendant No. 4 seeking adjournment. These under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC filed by defendant No. 4 seeking adjournment. These under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC filed by defendant No. 4 seeking adjournment. These under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC filed by defendant No. 4 seeking adjournment. These sed of vide order dated 31.05.2025 by the learned trial applications were disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2025 by the learned trial sed of vide order dated 31.05.2025 by the learned trial applications were dispo court. The trial court had then observed that though the plaintiff was old in age, her court. The trial court had then observed that though the plaintiff was old in age, her court. The trial court had then observed that though the plaintiff was old in age, her court. The trial court had then observed that though the plaintiff was old in age, her condition was stable, and the medical record reflected that she was advised daily condition was stable, and the medical record reflected that she was advised daily condition was stable, and the medical record reflected that she was advised daily condition was stable, and the medical record reflected that she was advised daily rmal test reports. It was therefore held that there was walk of 1 to 1.5 hours, with normal test reports. It was therefore held that there was rmal test reports. It was therefore held that there was walk of 1 to 1.5 hours, with no no need to appoint a Local Commissioner to record her evidence at home, but no need to appoint a Local Commissioner to record her evidence at home, but no need to appoint a Local Commissioner to record her evidence at home, but no need to appoint a Local Commissioner to record her evidence at home, but considering her age, her evidence would be recorded on priority basis in court to considering her age, her evidence would be recorded on priority basis in court to considering her age, her evidence would be recorded on priority basis in court to considering her age, her evidence would be recorded on priority basis in court to avoid inconvenience. avoid inconvenience. 3. written statement was filed by the present petitioner Subsequently, the written statement was filed by the present petitioner written statement was filed by the present petitioner Subsequently, the and issues were framed. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the present application and issues were framed. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the present application and issues were framed. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the present application and issues were framed. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the present application under Order 10 CPC for recording her evidence at her residence, relying on fresh under Order 10 CPC for recording her evidence at her residence, relying on fresh under Order 10 CPC for recording her evidence at her residence, relying on fresh under Order 10 CPC for recording her evidence at her residence, relying on fresh ow been advised complete supervised rest at medical record showing that she had now been advised complete supervised rest at ow been advised complete supervised rest at medical record showing that she had n home. After considering the application and the submissions, the trial court vide home. After considering the application and the submissions, the trial court vide home. After considering the application and the submissions, the trial court vide home. After considering the application and the submissions, the trial court vide the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 allowed the application and appointed a the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 allowed the application and appointed a the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 allowed the application and appointed a the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 allowed the application and appointed a ntiff at her residence, while Local Commissioner to record the statement of the plaintiff at her residence, while Local Commissioner to record the statement of the plai Local Commissioner to record the statement of the plai observing that the remaining witnesses would be examined in court upon deposit observing that the remaining witnesses would be examined in court upon deposit observing that the remaining witnesses would be examined in court upon deposit observing that the remaining witnesses would be examined in court upon deposit of diet money. Submissions of the Petitioner Submissions of the Petitioner 4. he present Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that n earlier identical application had already been application is not maintainable as an earlier identical application had already been n earlier identical application had already been application is not maintainable as a dismissed on 31.05.2025; hence, the second application is barred by res judicata. dismissed on 31.05.2025; hence, the second application is barred by res judicata. dismissed on 31.05.2025; hence, the second application is barred by res judicata. dismissed on 31.05.2025; hence, the second application is barred by res judicata. Order 10 CPC does not empower the civil court to direct recording of evidence Order 10 CPC does not empower the civil court to direct recording of evidence Order 10 CPC does not empower the civil court to direct recording of evidence Order 10 CPC does not empower the civil court to direct recording of evidence nder Order 18 Rules 16 and 19 through a Local Commissioner; such power lies under Order 18 Rules 16 and 19 through a Local Commissioner; such power lies u through a Local Commissioner; such power lies u CPC. Therefore, filing the application under Order 10 CPC is misconceived. CPC. Therefore, filing the application under Order 10 CPC is misconceived. CPC. Therefore, filing the application under Order 10 CPC is misconceived. No change of circumstances has occurred since dismissal of the earlier application. change of circumstances has occurred since dismissal of the earlier application. change of circumstances has occurred since dismissal of the earlier application. change of circumstances has occurred since dismissal of the earlier application. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.15 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6482-2025 (O&M) -3- - of dispute; The plaintiff resides in the very house which is the subject-matter of dispute; The plaintiff resides in the very house which is the subject The plaintiff resides in the very house which is the subject The plaintiff’s ability to file recording of her statement there would be improper. The plaintiff’s ability to file recording of her statement there would be improper. recording of her statement there would be improper. The replication within one day shows that she is not in such frail health as pleaded. The replication within one day shows that she is not in such frail health as pleaded. replication within one day shows that she is not in such frail health as pleaded. ready been trial court itself noted contradictory facts, i.e., that affidavit had already been trial court itself noted contradictory facts, i.e., that affidavit had al trial court itself noted contradictory facts, i.e., that affidavit had al tendered, and yet directed furnishing of another affidavit. Till date the affidavit has tendered, and yet directed furnishing of another affidavit. Till date the affidavit has tendered, and yet directed furnishing of another affidavit. Till date the affidavit has tendered, and yet directed furnishing of another affidavit. Till date the affidavit has In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance not been tendered in court. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance not been tendered in court. Kapil Corepacks upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kapil Corepacks upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in rivate Ltd. and Others Vs. Harbans Lal (since deceased) through LRs. [(2010) Private Ltd. and Others Vs. Harbans Lal (since deceased) through LRs. [(2010) rivate Ltd. and Others Vs. Harbans Lal (since deceased) through LRs. [(2010) rivate Ltd. and Others Vs. Harbans Lal (since deceased) through LRs. [(2010) ; Laxmibai (dead) through LRs and Another Vs. 8 Supreme Court Cases 452]; Laxmibai (dead) through LRs and Another Vs. ; Laxmibai (dead) through LRs and Another Vs. 8 Supreme Court Cases 452] Bhagwantbuv (dead) through LRs and Others [2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 97. Bhagwantbuv (dead) through LRs and Others [2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 97 Bhagwantbuv (dead) through LRs and Others [2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 97 Bhagwantbuv (dead) through LRs and Others [2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 97 Findings 5. I have heard learned counsel for the I have heard and carefully perused learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record. 6. The order dated 31.05.2025 disposing of earlier applications was The order dated 31.05.2025 disposing of earlier applications was The order dated 31.05.2025 disposing of earlier applications was The order dated 31.05.2025 disposing of earlier applications was passed at a stage when pleadings were incomplete and issues had not been framed. passed at a stage when pleadings were incomplete and issues had not been framed. passed at a stage when pleadings were incomplete and issues had not been framed. passed at a stage when pleadings were incomplete and issues had not been framed. ncy in view of the medical record then placed The court at that stage found no urgency in view of the medical record then placed ncy in view of the medical record then placed The court at that stage found no urge on record. However, the present application has been filed at a later stage when on record. However, the present application has been filed at a later stage when on record. However, the present application has been filed at a later stage when on record. However, the present application has been filed at a later stage when written statements have been filed, issues framed, and the matter has reached the written statements have been filed, issues framed, and the matter has reached the written statements have been filed, issues framed, and the matter has reached the written statements have been filed, issues framed, and the matter has reached the medical record has been produced stage of plaintiff’s evidence. Moreover, fresh medical record has been produced medical record has been produced stage of plaintiff’s evidence. Moreover, fresh showing that the plaintiff is now advised complete supervised rest at home. Thus, a showing that the plaintiff is now advised complete supervised rest at home. Thus, a showing that the plaintiff is now advised complete supervised rest at home. Thus, a showing that the plaintiff is now advised complete supervised rest at home. Thus, a
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 September 15, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable Whether reportable speaking/non-speaking : Speaking : Yes/No (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.15 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document