Full Text
FAO(OS)670/2015
GEETA RANIDOGRA & ORS Appellant Represented by: Mr.P.P.Ahuja,Advocate
Represented by:
GEETA RANIDOGRA & ORS Respondent Mr.Akshay Makhija,Advocate with Ms.Sanjugeeta Moktam, Advocate Ms,Mahinia Bahl, Mr.Siddharth Thakur, Advocates
Appellants Mr.P.P.Ahuja,Advocate
Respondent Mr.Akshay Makhija,Advocate with Ms.Sanjugeeta Moktam, Advocate Ms,Mahima Bahl, Mr.Siddharth Thakur, Advocates
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
31.03.2016
ORDER
1. Impugned order in both appeals is dated September 03,2015 and we are surprised thattwo appeals are filed. Weneed notcommentonthereason FAO(OS)670/2015 &FAO(OS)671/2015 page 1 of[2] 2016:DHC:8567-DB s p■ for our surprise because learned counsel for the parties state that the two appeals couldbe disposedofby passing consent directions.
2. The two appeals are accordingly disposed of,passing consent directions containing following terms;-
(i) Right to cross-examine Dev Raj Dogra which has been closed under the impugned order is re-opened. The appellants would be permitted to further cross-examine Dev Raj Dogra but through video conferencing. The reason is Dev Raj Dogra is aged 92 years. He keeps ill-health. He is currency settled in Maryland,United State of America.
(ii) Cost of video conferencing to cross-examine Dev Raj Dogra to be incurredboth at India andUnited States of America shall be borne by the appellants.
3. Since the suit has since been transferred on account of increase of pecuniary jurisdiction to the Court oflearnedDistrict Judge, whether further evidence shall be recorded before the Local Commissioner or before the Court is left to the discretion of the transferee Court.
4. No costs. CM Nos.30230/2015 in 670/2015 & CM No.30233/2015 in FAOfOS) 671/2015 Dismissed as infhictuous.
PRADEEP NANBRAJOG, J. MUKTA GUPTA, J. MARCH 31, 2016 'skh' FAO(OS) 670/2015 & FAO(OS) 671/2015 page 2 of[2]