The court affirmed the right of a plaintiff in custody to present evidence via video conferencing, emphasizing the importance of access to justice.

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 to lead his oral evidence and in the event Court finds it difficult to get recorded oral testimony of the plaintiff namely petitioner No. 1 exercising power under Order 16A Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by securing attendance of the plaintiff from jail on a particular date, the Court can get the testimony recorded under the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.

5. Rules 3, 6 and 8 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 are crucial for this purpose are reproduced hereinunder:

''3. General Principles Governing Video Conferencing

(i) Video conferencing facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings and proceedings conducted by the Court.

(ii) All proceedings conducted by a Court by way of video conferencing shall be judicial proceedings and all the Courtesies and protocols applicable to a physical Court shall apply to these virtual proceedings. The protocol provided in Schedule I shall be adhered to for proceedings conducted by way of video conferencing.

(iii) All relevant statutory provisions applicable to judicial proceedings including provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (abbreviated hereafter as the Evidence Act), and Information Technology Act, 2000 (abbreviated hereafter as the IT Act), shall apply to proceedings conducted through video conferencing.

(iv) Subject to maintaining independence, impartiality and credibility of judicial proceedings, and subject to such directions as the High Court may issue, Courts may adopt such technological advances as may become available from time to time.

(v) The Rules as applicable to a Court shall mutatis mutandis apply to a Commissioner appointed by the Court to record evidence and to an inquiry officer conducting an inquiry.

(vi) There shall be no unauthorised recording of the proceedings by any person or entity.

(vii) The person defined in Rule 2(xii) shall provide identity proof as recognised by the Government of India/State Government/Union Territory to the Court point coordinator via personal e-mail. In case identity proof is not readily available the person concerned shall furnish the following personal details: name, parentage and permanent address, as also, temporary address if any.

6. Application for Appearance, Evidence and Submissions through Video Conferencing:

6.1 Any party to the proceeding or witness, save and except where proceedings are initiated at the instance of the Court, may move a? request for video conferencing. A party or witness seeking a video conferencing proceeding shall do so by making a request in the form prescribed in Schedule II.

6.2 Any proposal to move a request for video conferencing should first be discussed with the other party or parties to the proceeding, except whe