VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and assailing the order dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking permission to record the testimony of the attesting witness, namely Dr. Plom Khurana, was dismissed.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the present litigation pertains to the succession and inheritance of the estate of Smt. Prabha Kanta Sharma, wherein the petitioner has propounded a registered Will dated 21.12.1979, which was duly registered on 25.01.1980, under which the property in dispute is stated to have been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner and respondents No. 5 to 8 in equal shares.

2.1. It is further submitted that Dr. Plom Khurana is a material, relevant, and indispensable witness whose testimony is essential for proving the due execution and attestation of the aforesaid Will in accordance with law. It is contended that an application dated 02.12.2025 was moved seeking permission for recording her testimony through video conferencing on the ground that she is an elderly lady aged approximately 78 years, presently residing at Gurugram, and is also attending to her ailing husband, who is stated to be suffering from Stage-IV cancer, in addition to severe cardiac ailments and diabetes. Owing to such compelling personal and medical circumstances, it is submitted that she is not in a position to undertake travel to Chandigarh for the purpose of recording her deposition before the learned Trial Court.

3. The said application was contested by respondents No. 1 to 4 and, after considering the rival submissions, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 20.03.2026, dismissed the application.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order and being dissatisfied with the findings recorded therein, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

5. I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have minutely examined the pleadings and material available on the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed in a wholly mechanical and perfunctory manner, without due application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances specifically pleaded in the application. It has further been contended that this Court has already framed Rules governing the recording of evidence through video conferencing and that the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard and contravention thereof. The relevant extract of the impugned order reads as under:–

2. After hearing the submission of leaned counsel for both the parties as well as material placed on record, it is transpired that the present case is filed by the plaintiff seeking decree for declaration that the registered Will dated 28.01.1980 of late Smt. Prabba Kanta Sharma is forged and fabricated. Since the witness to be examined by the defendant i.e. Mrs. Plom Khurana w/o of Sh. Desh Bandhu Khurana is attesting witness to the aforesaid Will as such her testimony is essential for the just decision of the case. Since her presence would be required to identify the signature or other material circumstances surrounding with the Will, so this Court is the opinion that she could be examined in the Court in the interest of justice. As considering her age as well as travel time, she can be compensated by way of cost. It is further pertinent to mention that it is not case of the applicant that the witness could not travel. As such, the mere age without any ailment of the witness is not a ground to exempt her from appearing in the court. Accordingly, the application in hand stands dismissed.

7. It is pertinent to note that the requisite technological infrastructure for conducting procee