Amit Rawal, J.

The petitioner-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 12.03.2015, (Annexure P-3), whereby, an application moved under Order 18, Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for granting permission for examination of plaintiff no.1-Satpal Dhawan through Video Conferencing on the ground that he is stated to be suffering from ill health and unable to appear before the Court being resident of USA, has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Anshul Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiffs submits that mode of examination of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C., through Video Conferencing and appearance of a witness through Video Conferencing has been considered permissible in criminal proceedings by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053. By relying upon the aforementioned judgment, two High Courts of this country, namely, Calcutta High Court and Delhi High Court held that evidence of witness in civil case can be recorded through video conferencing by deputing concerned Registrar of the Court as a Coordinator with regard to tech