Evidence may be recorded before a Local Commissioner where direct courtroom supervision is impracticable.

The Petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 12 August 2026 passed by the Family Court-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in HMA No. 805/2023.

The Family Court directed that the evidence be recorded before a learned Local Commissioner and prescribed detailed procedures concerning scheduling, examination and cross-examination, documents, objections, remuneration, adjournments, and judicial intervention.

The Petitioner did not challenge the appointment of the Local Commissioner as such, but contended that, considering the nature and conduct of the Respondent, evidence should be recorded in the courtroom so that the Presiding Judge could intervene whenever disputes arose during the proceedings.

The Petition formally sought setting aside of the impugned order in its entirety.

Whether the Family Court’s direction to record evidence before a Local Commissioner ought to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the evidence should instead be recorded in the courtroom under the direct supervision or intervention of the Presiding Judge, having regard to Order XVIII Rules 4(2) and 5 of the CPC.

Whether the elaborate procedural safeguards contained in the Family Court’s order rendered the appointment and functioning of the Local Commissioner impracticable or legally unsustainable.

The Court considered Article 227 of the Constitution, which confers supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts but does not ordinarily warrant interference with discretionary procedural orders absent jurisdictional error, perversity, or serious injustice.

It also considered Order XVIII Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits evidence by affidavit and provides for cross-examination and re-examination before the Court or a person authorised by it.

Order XVIII Rule 5, relied upon by the Petitioner, concerns the manner of recording evidence when an appeal is allowed and was argued to require recording in the presence or under the personal direction and superintendence of the Judge.

The Court observed prima facie that the Petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 5 could render Rule 4(2) otiose and unworkable.

The Court found the Petitioner’s concern regarding the possibility of disputes during evidence recording to be understandable, but held that requiring the Family Court Judge to remain available for repeated interventions would not be practicable because the Judge had to discharge regular judicial functions and hear other matters.

The impugned order was comprehensive and addressed likely contingencies, including production and summoning of documents, objections to exhibits, examination and cross-examination, adjournments, hostile witnesses, closure of evidence, and referral of situations requiring judicial intervention to the Family Court.

Accordingly, the Court found no sufficient basis under its supervisory jurisdiction to invalidate the arrangement.

It further held that the Petitioner’s suggestion regarding courtroom recording could be placed before the Family Court, which could consider it if warranted during the proceedings.

The Court left the interpretation of Order XVIII Rules 4(2) and 5 open for consideration before the Family Court in appropriate proceedings.

The Court declined to interfere, noting that courtroom recording under the Presiding Judge’s supervision was impracticable and that the impugned order contained adequate procedural safeguards.

The Petitioner was granted liberty to place her suggestion before the Family Court for appropriate consideration.

The Petition and all pending applications were disposed of.