The court confirmed video conferencing for evidence recording aligns with modern judicial practices despite legal challenges on witness presence.

JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

The present revision has been filed for setting aside order dated 11.11.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide which application under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 for examining respondent No.2 Balwinder Singh and respondent No.3 Manjit Singh through video conferencing has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala has wrongly allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 and 3 by relying upon medical record of respondent No.2 Balwinder Singh, which is not authenticated. He further contends that despite the fact that both respondent No.2 and 3 were declared proclaimed offenders, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala allowed the application for examining them through video conferencing. Further that learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala failed to appreciate that to facilitate the respondents No.2 and 3 who are proclaimed offenders to join proceedings through video conferencing would amount to avoid criminal prosecution against them.

3. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in T.G. Veeraprasad and others Vs. Sri Prakash Gandhi and others , 2022(3) AIR Kar R 604, to support his contentions, wherein, the Court held that opportunity to judge the demeanor of a witness face to face is accorded great value in Indian Judicial system and merely by showing that it is inconvenient for a witness to attend trial can create a risk of denial of effective cross-examination.

4. Further reliance is placed on judgment passed by Telangana High Court in Sundeep Reddy Tirumala Reddy Vs. Dondeti Anusha Reddy , 2020(2) HLT160, whereby, the Court held that recording evidence through video conferencing in matrimonial proceedings should be declined as it would facilitate husband to avoid criminal trial. Therefore, he prays that present revision petition be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 contends that petitioner and respondent No.2 are real brothers and the criminal proceedings which are pending are because of the complaints lodged by the petitioner only. Further that he has also filed counter claim in the same suit filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that they do not want to delay the proceedings and as on date Balwinder Singh-respondent No.2 is in vegetative state and Manjit Singh-respondent No.3 who is son of Balwinder Singh is to look after his father, therefore, it will be difficult for them to physically present for examination from Canada. And due to the medical condition of Balwinder Singh only the application to appear and get examined through video conferencing was filed by the respondents. Therefore, he prays that the present revision petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file of this case with their able assistance.

7. A perusal of file shows that the civil suit is filed by the petitioner, wherein, examination of respondents No.2 and 3 were required. Admittedly, respondents No.2 and 3 are resident of Canada and respondent No.2 Balwinder Singh had undergone heart surgery at Canada, thereafter, suffered major head and neck injuries in road accident and was under treatment, therefore, both of them since were to be examined in the civil suit moved an application for their examination through video conferencing.

8. A perusal of file further shows that respondents No.2 and 3 have already filed quashing petitions before this Court and the application for examination through video conferencing was filed on medical grounds and not to avoid criminal proceedings.

9. F