DELHI HIGH COURT
Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) —Appellant
versus
Madhu Bala Nath —Respondent
FAO(OS) 416/2015 & CM No.13475/2015 (stay)
Decided on 7.1.2016
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 18 Rules 3 and 4—Recording of statement of a witness through video conferencing—Role of a witness is paramount in justice system of any country—By deposing in a case they assist court in discovering truth—Witnesses have to be treated with due respect and are not to be put to any inconvenience merely because they agree to testify—When a witness travels to Court for the purpose of deposition, a witness has to spend several hours in Court and at times major part of time spent in Court is in waiting for the case to reach and proceedings to commence—In these circumstances, to insist on witness travelling to Court and waiting for hours may not be judicious—Procedures have been laid down to facilitate dispensation of justice—Dispensation of justice entails speedy justice and justice rendered with least inconvenience to parties as well as to witnesses—If a facility is available for recording evidence through video conferencing which avoids any delay or inconvenience to parties as well as to witnesses, such facilities should be resorted to—Application allowed—Appellant permitted to record testimony and cross-examination of its witness through audio video conferencing. (Paras 4, 5, 14 and 17)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.—The present appeal impugns the order dated 02.07.2015 whereby the application of the defendant/appellant under Order XVIII Rules 3 & 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for permitting the recording of the statement of a witness through video conferencing was rejected.
2. The application was filed by the appellant for permission to record the testimony of the sole appellant’s witness through audio and video link on the ground that the sole witness is based at London and is unable to travel to Delhi for her cross-examination. It was contended that the appellant is a charitable organization and is not in a position to afford the substantial expenditure required to be incurred for travel and stay of the sole witness to Delhi and further the presence of the said witness was necessary for various official commitments as she is the Head of the Human Resource which entails numerous responsibilities and the sole witness being female aged 54 years would have to suffer a lot of inconvenience to travel for her testimony to Delhi. In these circumstances, the application was filed for permission to record the deposition through audio and video conferencing.
3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application holding as under:-
“2. I have completely failed to understand the application because the averments in the application leave this Court to believe (that a witness who is a resident of U.K simply feels that witness need not come to India in a judicial proceedings for recording of evidence. This is an unacceptable practice, more so when admittedly the witness as per the statement made today before this Court on behalf of counsel for the defendant is travelling over the world to many countries/locations. Also, no financial statements of the respondent-organization have been filed before this Court for this Court to appreciate and believe that the respondent-organization does not have monies for travel and stay of its witness to/in India. I may also note that counsel for the plaintiff is partially correct in arguing that the cost of video conferencing itself possibly will be a very substantial cost though the high cost issue is sought to be urged for the witness not to come to Delhi and depose. In any case, in my opinion cost of video conferencing is immaterial once the witness is otherwise travelling to various countries in the world and there is no handicap in any manner in this witness in coming to India and deposing in the case. World is really now a global village.”
4. We are unable to accept the view taken by the learned Single Judge for rejecting the application. The learned Single Judge has erred in not noticing the development of law and technology that has taken place over the years. The Code is a procedural Code and procedures are subservient to justice. With the development of law and technology, the Courts have to use procedure, which facilitates the Courts in dispensing speedier justice. If a facility is available to the Court for the purposes of expediting the trial then every opportunity is to be taken by the Court to make use of such technology so as to further the process of dispensation of justice. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has taken a very narrow view of the matter. Merely because a witness is travelling over the world and/or may have the financial resources to travel to India does not necessarily imply that the Court must insist upon the witness personally coming to the Court for the purpose of deposing before the Court and/or her cross-examination.
5. There may even be a situation where the witness may be available within the city where the Court is located, however, on account of the nature of work or physical condition of the witness, it may not be possible or viable for the witness to travel to Court. The role of a witness is paramount in the justice system of any country. By deposing in a case, they assist the court in discov
State of Maharashtra v. Dr Praful B. Desai
Milano Impex Private Ltd. v. Egle Footwear Pvt. Ltd.
Zaishu Xie & Anr. vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.& Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.