ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed by the defendant No.2 questioning the order dated 30.05.2022 passed on memo filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2. Under the impugned order, the learned Judge has declined permission sought by the counsel appearing for the present petitioner/defendant No.2 to be present at the remote point while recording evidence of defendant No.2.

2. The present petitioner is a resident of Michigan, USA and is aged about 87 years and is suffering from various health issues. Therefore, the petitioner filed applications in I.A.Nos.27 and 28 under Rule 6 of the Video Conferencing Rules and also application in I.A.No.36 under Order 18 Rule 16 of CPC to examine the petitioner immediately. The said applications were allowed by the Trial Court thereby permitting the present petitioner/defendant No.2 and defendant No.5 to record their evidence through Video Conference. The Trial Court accordingly with the consent of parties to the suit, fixed the date of recording evidence through video conferencing on 06.06.2022. The petitioner filed memo on 25.05.2022 requesting the Court to make further e-mail correspondence towards logistic support and to inform the remote point coordinator to issue 5 entry passes to enable the petitioner to have assistance of his Advocate and also attendants.

3. The contesting defendants filed statement of objections to the said memo. The learned Judge vide impugned order at Annexure-A has refused to permit the petitioner's Advocate to be present at the remote point while recording evidence of defendant No.2. It is this order which is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds has raised the following questions:

"1) Whether an advocate representing a party who has been tendered in evidence from a Remote point can be excluded from the remote point at the time of recording evidence of the witness?

2) Whether a party to the proceedings could be excluded from personal presence at the remote point where evidence of a witness in the case is being recorded at the Remote Point?

3) What order or direction is required to be issued?"

5. Learned counsel would vehemently argue and contend that Advocate plays a vital role in dispensation of justice. Referring to the principles of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shrimati Jamilabai Abdul Kadar vs. Shankarlal Gulabchand and Others, (1975) 2 SCC 609 he would point out that the Hon'ble Apex Court while rendering the above said judgment was of the view that the lawyer appearing in the Court is a class by himself and to compare him with an ordinary agent may be to lose sight of the lawyer as engineer of the rule of law in society. Referring to the judgment, he would also point out that the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court indicating that legal profession is a para-public institution which deserves special confidence of and owes greater responsibility to the community at large than the ordinary run of agency. He would further contend that casting aspersions on an Advocate is undesirable.

6. The second limb of arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in regard to interpretation of provision of Video Conferencing Rules. Referring to the Rules, he would point out that said Rules do not specifically exclude the Advocate when evidence of witness is being recorded either at the Court point or at the remote point. Referring to Rule 2(iv) of the Rules, he would contend that the said definition is an inclusive definition and therefore, interpreting the above said Rule, learned counsel would contend that both physical and virtual court are presumed to be Court for all practical purposes. Therefore, referring to Rules 2(v) and 2(x), he would contend that Court point and remote point together constitute a Court more particularly, when evidence is being recorded through video conference. It is in this background, he would counter the defence of the contesting respondents that the remote po