IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ.
INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION – Appellant
Versus
MADHU BALA NATH – Respondent
F.A.O. (OS) No. 416 of 2015 & C.M. No. 13475 of 2015
Decided On : 7.1.2016
Video Conferencing - Civil Procedure - Order XVIII Rules 3 & 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure - 2003 (4) SCC 601, 1983 SCC (Tax) 2, 1983 SCC (L&S) 72, 1997 5 SCC 482, 1996 SCC (Cri) 336, 1999 SCC (Cri) 600, 2000 8 SCC 740, 2001 SCC (Cri) 87, 2005 (3) AD (Del) 682, 2012 (188) DLT 202, 2014 (207) DLT 289, 2007 (8) AD (Delhi) 531 - The court discussed the development of law and technology, the interpretation of the term 'presence' in the context of recording evidence, and the use of video conferencing for recording testimony of witnesses. The court emphasized the need to utilize technology for expediting the trial and dispensing speedier justice, and highlighted the importance of treating witnesses with respect and avoiding inconvenience to them. The judgment also referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing the need to assimilate changes in technology and progress in society to be in tune with the reality of the times.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant/appellant filed an application under Order XVIII Rules 3 & 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to record the testimony of a witness through video conferencing, as the witness was based in London and unable to travel to Delhi due to financial constraints and work commitments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the application, emphasizing the need to utilize technology for expediting the trial and dispensing speedier justice, and highlighting the importance of treating witnesses with respect and avoiding inconvenience to them.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the application for recording testimony through video conferencing, the development of law and technology, and the interpretation of the term 'presence' in the context of recording evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to assimilate changes in technology and progress in society to be in tune with the reality of the times, and highlighted the importance of utilizing technology for expediting the trial and dispensing speedier justice.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to record the testimony and cross-examination of its witness through audio video conferencing, subject to specified conditions.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The present appeal impugns the order dated 02.07.2015 whereby the application of the defendant/appellant under Order XVIII Rules 3 & 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for permitting the recording of the statement of a witness through video conferencing was rejected.
2. The application was filed by the appellant for permission to record the testimony of the sole appellants witness through audio and video link on the ground that the sole witness is based at London and is unable to travel to Delhi for her cross-examination. It was contended that the appellant is a charitable organization and is not in a position to afford the substantial expenditure required to be incurred for travel and stay of the sole witness to Delhi and further the presence of the said witness was necessary for various official commitments as she is the Head of the Human Resource which entails numerous responsibilities and the sole witness being female aged 54 years would have to suffer a lot of inconvenience to travel for her testimony to Delhi. In these circumstances, the application was filed for permission to record the deposition through audio and video conferencing.
3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application holding as under:-
“2. I have completely failed to understand the application because the averments in the application leave this Court to believe (that a witness who is a resident of U.K. simply feels that witness need not come to India in a judicial proceedings for recording of evidence. This is an unacceptable practice, more so when admittedly the witness as per the statement made today before this Court on behalf of counsel for the defendant is travelling over the world to many countries/locations. Also, no financial statements of the respondent-organization have been filed before this Court for this Court to appreciate and believe that the respondent-organization does not have monies for travel and stay of its witness to in India. I may also note that counsel for the plaintiff is partially correct in arguing that the cost of video conferencing itself possibly will be a very substantial cost though the high cost issue is sought to be urged for the witness not to come to Delhi and depose. In any case, in my opinion cost of video conferencing is immaterial once the witness is otherwise travelling to various countries in the world and there is no handicap in any manner in this witness in coming to India and deposing in the case. World is really now a global village.”
4. We are unable to accept the view taken by the learned Single Judge for rejecting the application. The learned Single Judge has erred in not noticing the development of law and technology that has taken place over the years. The Code is a procedural Code and procedures are subservient to justice. With the development of law and technology, the Courts have to use procedure, which facilitates the Courts in dispensing speedier justice. If a facility is available to the Court for the purposes of expediting the trial then every opportunity is to be taken by the Court to make use of such technology so as to further the process of dispensation of justice. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has taken a very narrow view of the matter. Merely because a witness is travelling over the world and/or may have the financial resources to travel to India does not necessarily imply that the Court must insist upon the witness personally coming to the Court for the purpose of deposing before the Court and/or her cross-examination.
5. There may even be a situation where the witness may be available within the city where the Court is located, however, on account of the nature of work or physical condition of the witness, it may not be possible or viable for the witness to travel to Court. The role of a witness is paramount in the justice system of any country. By deposing in a case, they assist the court i
State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai
National Textile Workers’ Union vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan
CIT vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 482
SIL Import, USA vs. Exim Aides Silk Exporters
Basavaraj R. Patil vs. State of Karnataka
Milano Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Egle Footwear Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (188) DLT 202
Zaishu Xie & Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.