CR-384-2023 (O&M)

-1-

119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-384-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: January 20, 2023

Gurdial Singh

…Petitioner

versus

Roop Lal @ Rajveer Singh

..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is for

setting aside impugned order dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by

learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), SBS Nagar, whereby in a suit for

specific performance of agreement to sell instituted by petitioner-plaintiff,

application of defendant-respondent seeking permission to record evidence of

defendant through video-conferencing, was allowed.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through

the case file.

3.

Impugned order is premised, inter alia, on the following

reasoning:

“6.

The

plea

of

the

Ld.

counsel

for

the

respondent/plaintiff

is

that

previously

also

the

applicant/defendant filed the application which was dismissed

and there is no change of circumstances and the present

application is not maintainable but this court is of the view that

the said contention of the Ld. counsel for the respondent/plaintiff

is not tenable because the first application was moved during

pandemic period and it was dismissed vide order dated

05.09.2022 holding that as there is no such situation of pandemic

MAHAVIR SINGH

2023.02.02 18:34

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CR-384-2023 (O&M)

-2-

on the date of decision and there is no restraint of flights to

foreign country.

7.

The present application has been filed by the

defendant on the ground that the defendant is unable to travel to

India due to his professional constraints for his evidence in this

case. Admittedly the defendant is residing in United Kingdom and

the witness is residing beyond the jurisdiction of this court. So

due to his professional constraint she is not able to travel to

India. So the present application has been moved under changed

circumstances on the ground that defendant could not travel to

India due to his professional constraint. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India has already framed the Model Rules of Video

Conferencing for recording the evidence by way of Video

Conferencing. The Chapter II clause 3 of said Model Rules

provides General Principle governing video conferencing as

follows:-

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 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 CPC, Cr PC, 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 by 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 unauthorized recording of the

proceedings by any person or entity.

(vii) The person defined in Rule 2 (xii) shall provide identity

proof as