( 1 ) THESE two petitions involve a techno-legal questions resulting in the growth of technically speedy procedure. CRP 4636/2002 is filed by the defendants 1 and 2 challenging the order dated 28-11-2002 passed on IA No. 17. CRP;4637/2002 is filed by the same defendants challenging the order dated 28-11-2002 passed in IA No. 5 in OS No. 154/98.

( 2 ) FACTS in brief are as under: parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. Appellants are defendants. Respondent is the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 154/98 on the file of the Principal District Judge. Mysore, complaining about the infringement of copy right in respect of film 'independence Day'. Plaintiff also sought for an order restraining the release of the said film by the defendant. An IA was filed seeking for an order to restrain the defendants from rereleasing, screening of the film any where in India or in other countries. The said IA was rejected. It was challenged in MFA No. 3074/1999. This Court rejected the appeal by an order dated 19-7-1999. This Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit not later than six months from the date of the order. According to the averments in the appeal, the plaintiff did not commence his evidence immediately. He commenced his evidence only on 15-6-2001 i. e, nearly after two years. He examined his witnesses and closed the evidence on 16-1-2002. Defendants examined their witnesses and they have six more witnesses to be examined. Four witnesses are from USA. During this period due to disturbances in Mysore on account of Cauvery Water Dispute, the witnesses had to change their travel plans on number of occasions. On a few occasions learned counsel from Bombay who have to come down from Bombay to Bangalore along with witnesses were unable to proceed to Mysore on account of agitation and the consequential disruption of road and rail traffic. Defendants say that having regard to the fact that four witnesses who are to be examined are permanent residents of USA, an application was filed seeking an order to examine them through Audio-Video Link. The trial Court passed an order rejecting this request. This order is challenged in CRP 4637/2002. CRP 4636/2002 also refers to the very facts. The only difference in this case is that IA No. 17 was filed with a prayer to record the evidence by way Commissioner. Learned Judge has rejected this IA No. 17 (sic) both these applications were contested and a common order was passed by the learned Judge. Both these petitions are taken up together. The matter was listed for orders both the counsel expressed their desire to argue the case finally in the interest of early disposal. With their consent the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) THE issue involved in the case on hand is with regard to examination of witnesses in USA either by way of Commissioner or by way of Audio-Video Link. Sri Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner invites may attention to the material facts to show that this Court has factually granted six months time in terms of the earlier order and he has also filed a memo in that regard. He also says that in these days of technological development Courts are also to develop law in the light of the technological improvement in the matter of procedure. He states that in the light of the amended CPC witness can be examined by way of Audio-Video Link. He also says with emphasis that Audio-Video link is permissible in law. He relies on some judgments.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri AYN Gupta, learned counsel for respondent, with vehemence would say that the present CPC does not provide examination of witnesses by way of audio-Video Link. He also relies on a Division Bench Judgment reported in (1975) 2 kant LJ 47 (short notes of cases ). He would also say that revision itself is not maintainable in the case on hand. While concluding he states that the Audio-Video Link has several in-built defects. He elaborates by saying