The court emphasized the need for temperance and civility in communications and found the respondent's application to be an abuse of the legal process.

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. This application, preferred by Mr. Khosla/respondent no.2, prays for a direction that the proceedings of the court be video recorded or at least audio recorded or “in the lesser preferred alternative”, that the entire hearing be transcribed by multiple court stenographers, at the expense of the applicant.

2. Mr. Khosla, who appears in person, advanced lengthy arguments on the above application, on 11th July 2017. Pursuant to conclusion of the arguments, vide order passed on the said date, the application was dismissed, for reasons to be stated separately.

3. This order proceeds to record the reasons for dismissing the aforementioned application.

4. Paras 4 to 7, and 13 to 16 of the application, which purport to set out the justification, for the prayers contained therein, read as under:

“4. That it is most humbly submitted that parties resorting to wayward conduct(such as filing false affidavits, filing forged documents, etcetera), itself, is bad enough; but when the “rot” spread to counsels acting in the matter, the manner in which proceedings are conducted has to change, so that no party can claim that benevolence has been shown by the Hon’ble Court to any erring party and/or his counsel.

5. That in the present litigation, 3 advocates have already been summoned to stand trial vide order dated 22.06.2017. In addition, in Crl. MC (Co) No. 1 of 2009, 5 advocates have been issued a notice by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court under Section 340 of the CRPC (for perjury), which proceedings have still not been closed; rather, the erring advocates, by refusing to the affidavits to contribute the allegations against them, have, in legal effect, accepted the charges levelled against them.

6. That under the circumstances, in order to protect the dignity and authority of this Hon’ble Court, and, consequently, the solemnity and sanctity of the proceedings it conducts, and even if not for the aforesaid purpose, but equally, for the protection of the rights of the parties hereto, it is essentially that there be an incontrovertible record of all that is argued in Court, so that should any party and/or counsel be caught “ making false claims in Court”, as the offence is prosecutable, inter alia, under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, it is very vital that the proceedings be meticulously recorded.

7. That it is equally vital to record the proceedings on the principles that “prevention is better than cure”. This argument is put forward on the from ice that in the event that the parties know that the proceedings are being recorded, everybody shall be much more circumspect in their conduct while appearing in Court, and shall refrain from making even what could be generously termed as “loose statements”, much less “false claims in Court”.

13. That as the Petitioner?s deposition at para 2 of their identical affidavits filed before this Hon’ble Court have deliberately excluded the mandatory phrase to the effect that the contents of their petition and subsequent applications are also based on the legal advice believed by him to be true, and since the affidavit, too, has undoubtedly been drafted by learned counsel, and he (learned counsel) is using the contents of the petition and the application in oral arguments put before this Hon’ble Court, and as it is inconceivable that any counsel worth his salt would- or could- give them advice of such a nature so as to enable the deponents to set out the alleged facts as set out by them in the petition and the application whose contents they are using to put forward arguments before this Hon’ble Court and argue the same, it is necessary and expedient in the interests of justice that the counsel(s) who have rendered this advice also be summoned and examined by this Hon’ble Court and cross-examined by the applicant, as they, too, would be witnesses to the correctness of the contents of the affidavits drafted by them and executed by the deponents.

14. That the submission of the applicant in t