ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants 1 to 4 and 7 questioning the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC. seeking permission to lead ocular evidence through video conferencing facilities.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Court below.

3. The plaintiffs have instituted a suit seeking to declare them as absolute owners of suit lands and for consequential relief of injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded at Para 7 of the plaint that the first defendant without any authorisation, on the strength of forged and fabricated power of attorney, has illegally transferred suit lands belonging to plaintiff in favour of defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs have also alleged that they have registered a complaint against defendants 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 461, 462 and 465 read with Section 120-B of IPC. The learned Magistrate has referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On these set of pleadings, the plaintiffs have instituted a suit against defendants.

4. Defendants 1 to 4 and 7 have contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The plaintiffs in support of their contention have led in ocular and documentary evidence. Defendants 1 to 4 and 7 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking leave to permit defendant No.1 to lead ocular evidence through video conferencing facilities. The application is supported by a memorandum of facts by the counsel on record. At para 3 of the memorandum of facts, the counsel on record appearing for Defendants 1 to 4 and 7 has stated that defendant No.1 is a senior citizen aged about 68 years having co-morbid health concerns and is a resident of Hyderabad and in the light of ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the doctor has advised him to not to travel to Bengaluru. Therefore, prayer is made to permit defendant No.1 to lead evidence through video conferencing as this Court has laid down Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts dated 25.06.2020.

5. The plaintiffs have strongly resisted the application contending that the present application itself is not maintainable as application is supported by advocates memorandum of facts. Plaintiffs claim that the present application is filed only to drag on the case and the application is tainted with malafides. The plaintiffs have further contended that the conduct of defendant No.1 is found to be grossly unfair and the same can be gathered from the order sheet. Plaintiffs claim that defendant No.1 filed an application on 12.4.2001 seeking dismissal of suit and sought several adjournments. The said application was ultimately rejected by this Court on 8.10.2021. Even after dismissal of the said application, the plaintiffs claim that defendant No.1 has been dragging on the matter by seeking several adjournments. Further, plaintiffs have objected for recording evidence through video conferencing by contending that there are voluminous documents.

6. The learned Judge after hearing both the parties and after having referred to the memorandum of facts and objections tendered by plaintiffs has rejected the application. The learned Judge while rejecting the application has taken note of the fact that defendant No.1 has taken several adjournments to lead evidence and first defendant has produced more than 100 documents and therefore, the learned Judge was not inclined to entertain the application. The application was also rejected on the count that it was not supported by an affidavit duly sworn to by defendant No.1.

7. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. Uday Holla reiterating the grounds would question the order under challenge on the ground that the order does not indicate that the learned Judge has applied his mind. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge erred in not exercising di