The court upheld the denial of video evidence in cross-examination due to non-compliance with disclosure rules and failure to provide an authenticity certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants/landlords challenging the order dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure Pl) passed by the Commercial Court/ Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram exercising jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/tenant has been accepted; and the petitioners have been denied the permission to put a video clip during the crossexamination of plaintiff/PWl.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P2) against the petitioners/defendants before the Commercial Court seeking recovery of Rs.1,39,94,230/- which includes Rs.1,32,00,000/- as security deposit; Rs.2,12,400/- for sewerage repair cost; and Rs.5,81,830/- as accumulated interest @ 18% per annum. The said suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 . Facts as pleaded in the plaint were that plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises and for that purpose a Lease Deed dated 24.12.2018 was executed for a period of 9 years. As per the terms of the lease deed there was a lock-in period of 36 months from the commencement of the lease deed. The respondent/tenant/plaintiff used the premises for operating an Audi vehicle workshop. An advance rent of Rs.22 lakh was paid by the respondent. As per the case of the plaintiff the dispute arose during the COVID period. As such, vide email dated 31.08.2021, the respondent had informed the petitioners that he shall vacate the premises by 15.01.2022. On 17.01.2022, another email was sent by the respondent to the petitioners stating that the premises were vacated and ready for handover. Pursuant to which, on 01.02.2022, possession was officially handed over to the petitioner No.l. It was the pleaded case of the respondent in the plaint that despite vacating the premises, the security deposit of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- and sewerage repair costs were not refunded. Accordingly, the respondent had filed the present suit for recovery.

3. The petitioner/defendants contested the suit and filed written statement (Annexure P-3) wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff has not only caused damage to the suit property but has also stolen the movable properties therefrom. Counter claim (Annexure P-4) for recovery of Rs. 2,79,25,536/- along with interest @ 18% interest per annum was also filed for: a) damages to property; b) unpaid rent for April 2020, May 2020 and January 2022. It was the allegation of the petitioners in the counter claim that the property was damaged beyond repair at time of handover; that there was theft of moveable property belonging to petitioner No.l; that there was damage to fire safety system, electrical system, sewerage, water harvesting and drainage systems.

4. During the course of trial, the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff commenced in which PWl-Nitish Bhardwaj, Authorised Person of the plaintiff-Firm, tendered Affidavit dated 13.03