Appointment Of Local Commissioner Cannot Be Sought By One Party To Marshal Better Evidence Against Another: Delhi High Court
Case: ITW GSE APS & Anr. v. Dabico Airport Solutions Private Ltd & Ors.
Coram: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case No.: CS(COMM) 628/2023
Court Observation: “Cumulative satisfaction of these three criteria is the sine qua non for Order 26 Rule 10A to apply”
“…the local commissioner, as per the prayer in the application, is required to inspect the defendants’ PCA and to prepare a technical report, mapping the claims of the PCA to the claims in the suit patent”
“Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC does not empower the court to issue a commission in order to equip the plaintiffs with “best evidence” … Permitting such an attempt would amount to the Court acting in aid of one of the parties to litigation, by aiding in obtaining of evidence only to support the case that the party seeks to set up, which would be completely destructive of the most basic principles of judicial independence”.
“The court has, for its part, to remain acutely aware of the fact that the report of such a Commissioner, were he to be appointed, would constitute “evidence”. The line between directing a scientific investigation to aid in determination of the questions arising in the case, and acting, even unwittingly and in the absence of any ill intent of the applicant, as an agent to procure evidence to support the case that it seeks to set up is at times thin, and the Court has to be cautious not to overstep it.”
Previous Posts
Liberal Approach Be Taken Regarding Delay In Appeals Filed By State: Supreme Court
Keywords
Appointment Of Local Commissioner
