The court emphasized the importance of considering the complexity of issues involved in a suit before allowing a party to lead evidence through video conferencing and highlighted the requirement of consent of parties for recording evidence by video conferencing.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 07.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.288 of 2022 in O.S.No.233 of 2013 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ongole.

2. The 18th respondent and the petitioner herein are the petitioners/plaintiffs whereas the respondent Nos.1 to 17 are the respondents/defendants in I.A.No.288 of 2022 in O.S.No.233 of 2013.

3. The petitioner and the 18th respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction. They filed the petition in I.A.No.288 of 2022 to permit the petitioner/P.W.1 to attend for cross-examination through video conference/ video call and the respondents resisted the petition by filing counter. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties, the trial Court dismissed the said petition. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The grounds raised in the Civil Revision Petition in nutshell are, that the advocate of the party is competent to file affidavit as observed by this Court in G.Krishna Murthy vs. Hemalatha Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., and dismissal of the petition on that ground is not tenable. Further, the trial Court had completely failed to take note the note the facts and circumstances under which the petitioner was constrained to file the petition, the change in VISA Rules & Regulations subsequent to Covid-19 and also the categorical observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a witness, who is residing in a far away distance, can be examined through online. The trial Court did not even consider the age of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances that prevented the petitioner from coming down to India to attend the Court to face cross-examination is beyond his control and that too no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the other side in allowing petition. The trial Court completely ignored Order-18, Rule 4(2) that provides for recoding of evidence either by Court or by Commissioner. The Trial Court, instead of ordering the petition for cross-examining the witness online/video conferencing by appointing an Advocate, in utter ignorance of law dismissed the petition. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

5. The first respondent filed counter affidavit in this Civil Revision Petition on his behalf and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 17, denying the averments of the Civil Revision Petition inter alia contending that, though the 18th respondent who is the 1st petitioner in the petition and 1st plaintiff in the suit is very much available to depose the affidavit, however, suppressing his availability and without giving any cogent reasons for the failure of the 18th respondent in deposing the affidavit, the counsel for the petitioner deposed the affidavit. Thus, the affidavit not having been deposed either by the petitioner or by his GPA holder, is liable to be dismissed. Further, the affidavit is bereft of any cogent reasons and no material documents are placed explaining the difficulties or reasons that prevented the petitioner to come down to India to depose before the Court. Moreover, the affidavit filed by the petitioner on being suggested by the trial Court, does not disclose any sufficient cause, except stating that final processing steps of his application for I-485 Application are in progress, which was the situation prevailing in the year 2022. Apart from that, the affidavit nowhere shows his inclination to come down to India. Thus, there are no bonafides in the petition, since the petitioner somehow wants the Court to accommodate his flimsy reasons. Adding to the above, the High Court of Karnataka in TG Veera Prasad & Ors v. Prakash Gandhi & Ors (W.P.No.8283 of 2022) held that consent of other party is necessary for recording of evidence by Video Conferencing. The trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition. There are no valid and justifiable grounds warranting interference of this Court with the reasoned order so passed. Hence, praye