THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3805 OF 2025

ORDER

1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in I.A.No.415 of 2023 in O.S. No. 658 of 2016. 2. By the impugned docket order, the Trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permission to record her evidence as PW.1 through online mode by using video-conference facilities and, for that purpose, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

3. The Trial Court accordingly allowed the application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of PW.1, directing that the plaintiff shall pay the Commissioner’s fee. This order is now under challenge.

4. The objections raised by the petitioners/defendants are primarily that (i) the affidavit seeking permission to record the evidence of PW.1 online was sworn to by the counsel for the plaintiff, (ii) the request for recording evidence through online mode was not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the High Court, and (iii) the grounds for such request were not substantiated with cogent evidence.

5. In the present case, the suit is one for partition filed by the plaintiff against her father and brother. The plaintiff resides in Canada. In today’s world, where technology is widely accessible and routinely used in judicial proceedings, recording evidence through virtual mode has become common, especially when parties or witnesses live far away from the Court, where litigation is pending. When video-conference facilities are available, insisting on physical appearance would be unnecessary and inconvenient to the parties.

6. The objections raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants regarding the affidavit having been affirmed by the plaintiff’s counsel, the alleged non-compliance with guidelines, and the absence of detailed justification are hyper-technical. The petitioners/defendants will still have an opportunity to cross-examine PW.1 and advance all their objections in the original suit. No prejudice is caused merely because the evidence will be recorded online. On the other hand, insisting on physical appearance would cause inconvenience to the plaintiff and leads to unavoidable complications. Recording evidence through video conference is now widely accepted and permitted at all levels.

7. Therefore, the Trial Court’s decision in allowing the application cannot be found faulted. It is neither prejudicial to the parties nor contrary to law. Convenience of the parties is also a relevant consideration, which the Trial Court has rightly taken note of.

8. In view of the above, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned docket order.

9. The Civil Revision Petition accordingly stands dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

21.11.2025 NDS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3805 OF 2025

21.11.2025 NDS