Back
AJIT KUMAR
Hareram Singh – Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Vikram Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ajit Kumar, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner before this Court is plaintiff in the suit being O.S. No. 278 of 2014 instituted for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the suit property. He is aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court on 3.4.2024 whereby the opportunity of plaintiff to lead evidence has been finally closed and file has been made to progress for defendants' evidence.
3. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the plaintiff is in jail, he could not be produced whereas Court could have ordered for his production under Order 16A Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He has also argued that in view of Rules for Video Conferencing For Courts In The State Of Uttar Pradesh, 2020, the trial Court could have ordered for recording evidence of the plaintiff through video conferencing. He submits that in above regard even the High Court has issued necessary circulars on 5.3.2024.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I find that plaintiff being the crucial evidence in his own suit, is definitely entitled to lead evidence and hence should be permitted
The court affirmed the right of a plaintiff in custody to present evidence via video conferencing, emphasizing the importance of access to justice.
The court upheld the right to record evidence via video conferencing for parties residing abroad, emphasizing adherence to the Video Conferencing Rules-2020 and the necessity for judicial considerati....
The court confirmed video conferencing for evidence recording aligns with modern judicial practices despite legal challenges on witness presence.
Judicial endorsement of video conferencing for evidence collection is mandated, emphasizing modern practices should not be obstructed by technicalities.
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 ....
The court upheld the trial Court's decision to allow witness statements via ordinary video conferencing, emphasizing accessibility and the need for justice without undue hardship.
The court allowed the relaxation of video conferencing rules enabling a complainant abroad to record evidence, emphasizing the role of discretion to avoid undue hardship in legal proceedings.
The statement of an overseas witness can be recorded through video conferencing, as per the guidelines laid down by the court for the conduct of court proceedings between courts and remote sites.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
