The main legal point established is the applicability of Video Conferencing Rules to civil proceedings and the requirement for a Coordinator at the remote point for examining a witness through video conferencing.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J

1. The present revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, vide which the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the orders of the Court. The petition further assails the order dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) to the extent that it mandates that the examination of the witness will be guided only by Rule 5.1 read with Rule 5.2 and 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules (for short ‘the Rules’), issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit in the year 2015 (Annexure P-3) for partition of property No.110/20, DLF Colony, Rohtak by metes and bounds. An injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interrupting the petitioner-plaintiff from raising four walls in her portion of the property in question was also sought. Since the father of the petitioner-plaintiff namely Atul Kumar Jain was a resident of United Kingdom, an application dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) was moved by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking permission to examine him through video conferencing. The same was opposed by way of a reply dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure P-5). Vide order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, the said application was allowed and permission was granted to examine Sh. Atul Kumar Jain through video conferencing facility as per the procedure prescribed by law. Subsequently, an application dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-7) was moved by respondent No.1-defendant No.1 that the Rules laid down by the High Court had not been followed. This application was opposed by the petitioner-plaintiff by way of a reply dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-8). Vide order dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure P-2), the trial Court disposed of the said application (Annexure P-7) and directed the petitioner-plaintiff to produce PW Atul Kumar Jain as per the procedure laid down in Rule 5 of the Rules at his own expense. Since the witness was not produced, vide order dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file.

4. Since the decision of the revision petition will not affect the rights of the respondents-defendants, notice is not being issued to the respondents-defendants.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in closing the evidence of the petitioner. It has been submitted that Rules 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Rules would not be applicable in Civil Cases. It has further been contended that even if these Rules are applicable, it would not be possible for the petitioner to get a Coordinator appointed at the remote point since the witness is based in the United Kingdom unless and until a direction in this regard is issued by the trial Court. Learned counsel has infact, during the course of arguments, submitted that he would examine the witness Atul Kumar Jain by way of video conferencing as per the Rules laid down by the High Court provided a direction is given by the Court to appoint a Coordinator at the remote point. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in Sucha Singh vs. Ajmer Singh and another 2018 (3) R.C.R.(Civil) 327, Sumati Gulhati vs. Prateek Bajaj 2021 (3) R.C.R.(Civil) 383 and Sat Pal Dhawan and another vs. Davinder Singh Aulakh and others 2017 (1) Civ.C.C.681.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. “The Rules for video conferencing for Courts” were notified by the High Court on 10.12.2021. Rule 2(iii) defines ‘Coordinator’, Rule 2(v) defines ‘Court Point’ and Rule 2(x) defines ‘Remote Point’. They lay down as under:-

“Rule 2(iii)

“Coordinator