Anurag Bharti vs Veena Kant Manchanda And Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

137 CR-7690-2026
Date of Decision.:04.11.2026
Dr. Anurag Bharti …..Petitioner
Vs.
Veena Kant Manchanda and Others .….Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate
for the petitioner.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner (defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit bearing CNR No.
PBFZC100-0737-2023 pending before Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Fazilka, invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated
17.09.2026 (Annexure P5), whereby the trial Court allowed the application
of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to record her statement through video
conferencing.
2. The plaintiffs, who are siblings of the defendants, sued for a
declaration on the strength of inheritance from their father. The
defendants resisted the suit on the basis of a Will and a transfer deed.
Defendants No. 3 to 5 have been proceeded against ex parte .
3. Plaintiff- respondent No. 1 moved an application stating that
she is a senior citizen, suffers from physical ailments, resides at Mumbai,
and cannot undertake the long journey from Mumbai to Fazilka to depose,
and prayed that her evidence be recorded through video conferencing.
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.11.05 15:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7690-2026
4. The defendants opposed the application by asserting that
applicant is hale and hearty and can travel; that no medical evidence had
been produced; and that material questions and documents would have to
be put to her in cross-examination, which would not feasible through video
conferencing.
5. The trial Court, by the impugned order, noted that the suit is
between siblings, that the plaintiffs claim by inheritance while the
defendants rely on documentary evidence (a Will and a transfer deed), and
that there was therefore no reason for the defendants to put any specific
document to the plaintiff No.1. It held that there was no legal hitch in
recording her statement through video conferencing and allowed the
application.
6. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that: (i) the plaintiff No.1 produced no medical evidence,
and her bare assertion of ill-health could not justify departure from the
ordinary mode of recording evidence in open court; (ii) the defendants had
specifically pleaded that they intended to confront the plaintiff No.1 with
documents and that effective cross-examination is not possible through
video conferencing, yet the trial Court brushed this aside on a mistaken
assumption that no document needed to be put to her; (iii) the order is
cryptic, does not examine the Rules governing video conferencing, and
prescribes no safeguards; and (iv) the order therefore suffers from a
material irregularity warranting interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record.
8. Article 227 of the Constitution vests this Court with the power
of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial
jurisdiction. The power is supervisory and not appellate. It is to be
Page No. 2 of 7 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.11.05 15:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7690-2026
exercised sparingly, to keep a subordinate court within the bounds of its
authority and to correct a jurisdictional error, a perverse finding or a
manifest miscarriage of justice, and not to correct every error of fact or law
or to substitute this Court's view for a reasonable view taken by the trial
Court, as held in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215 ; Surya Dev
Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 ; Shalini Shyam Shetty v.
Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 ; M/s Garment Craft v. Prakash
Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181 .
9. The impugned order was passed at a preliminary stage of the
suit. It is interlocutory and procedural. It regulates only the mode in which
one party's evidence is to be recorded, and decides no right or issue
between the parties. Supervisory interference with such orders in the midst
of a trial is rare, since it stalls the proceedings and causes delay, and the
aggrieved party can raise any real difficulty before the trial Court as the
evidence is recorded. The question is therefore whether the order suffers
from any jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest injustice.
10. Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC requires the examination-in-chief of a
witness to be on affidavit and the cross-examination and re-examination to
be taken in court or by a Commissioner. The Court is empowered under
Order XVIII Rule 19 and Order XXVI CPC to have the evidence of a witness
taken on commission, and under Section 151 CPC, it retains inherent power
to make such orders as are necessary for the ends of justice. Nothing in the
Code confines the "presence" of a witness to physical presence in the
courtroom.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr.
Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 , held that recording evidence through
video conferencing satisfies the requirement of the witness being "present"
before the court and that the procedure is a permissible, effective means of
examining a witness who cannot conveniently attend. Later, in Salem
Page No. 3 of 7 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.11.05 15:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7690-2026
Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court upheld the amended scheme of Order XVIII and recognised
the use of technology for recording evidence in civil proceedings.
12. This Court has framed the Rules for Video Conferencing for
Courts (Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Volume V,
pursuant to the
as applied to subordinate courts by Chapter 1, Part I),
Model Rules circulated by the Honble Supreme Court. These Rules provide
a structured procedure for recording evidence from a remote point,
including verification of identity, appointment of a coordinator at the
remote point, transmission of documents, recording of demeanour, and
preservation of the audio-visual record. This Court in Ashwani Kumar
Sharma v. Rama Rani Sharma, CR-4160-2026, decided on 27.05.2026 has
recently held that such Rules are to be applied so as to advance access to
justice, and has set aside the refusal of a trial court to permit an elderly
witness to depose through video conferencing.
13. Neither the Code nor the Rules make production of a medical
certificate a pre-condition for recording evidence through video
conferencing. The ground on which the facility is sought here is twofold:
age and physical infirmity, and the distance between the plaintiff's place of
residence at Mumbai and the court at Fazilka, which is more than a
thousand kilometres. The plaintiff is a senior citizen, and her residence at
Mumbai is not seriously disputed on record. The defendants' assertion that
she is hale and hearty is, equally, unsupported by any material. In these
circumstances, the request cannot be called unreasonable. The trial Court
was entitled to act on the undisputed facts of age and distance, and the
absence of a medical certificate does not vitiate the order.
14. The petitioner's principal grievance deserves serious attention,
since cross-examination is the principal safeguard of the reliability of oral
evidence, and the right of a party to confront a witness with documents is
Page No. 4 of 7 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.11.05 15:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7690-2026
part of it. The reasoning of the trial Court on this point is, with respect, not
a sound one. The defendants rely on a Will and a transfer deed and are
entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff on her knowledge of, and stand
regarding, those documents or any other document. The trial Court could
not have prejudged that no document would be put to her. The
observation that there is "no reason" for the defendants to put any
document cannot be sustained as a general proposition and shall not be
read as restricting cross-examination.
15. That infirmity, however, does not render the direction itself
unlawful. The difficulty of confronting a witness with documents is exactly
the problem that the Video Conferencing Rules address, by providing for
the advance transmission of documents to the remote point, their
identification through the coordinator, and the recording of the witness's
responses and demeanour. A video conferencing order made without
invoking those safeguards is incomplete, but deficiency can be cured by
directions and need not be set aside. The balance of convenience also lies
in recording her evidence. Insistence on physical attendance of an elderly
plaintiff from Mumbai could delay the trial, burden the party, and, if she is
unable to attend, risk the non-recording of her evidence altogether, which
would be more harmful to the administration of justice than any residual
inconvenience in cross-examining remotely.
16. The petitioner's apprehension is, in any event, premature. The
suit is at a preliminary stage, the plaintiff's statement has yet to be
recorded, and no cross-examination has taken place. Whether cross-
examination through video conferencing will prove effective can be judged
only when the evidence is recorded with the safeguards in the Rules. If it
emerges that effective cross-examination cannot be conducted, the trial
Court retains full power to give appropriate directions, including requiring
the plaintiff to appear physically or issuing a commission for further cross-
Page No. 5 of 7 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.11.05 15:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7690-2026
examination. Viewed thus, the impugned order suffers from no
jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest injustice of the kind that would
justify the exercise of the supervisory power under Article 227, and
interference at this stage would only delay the trial.
17. For the reasons above, the petition is dismissed. The following
directions are issued in aid of the impugned order, by way of clarification so
that it is implemented fairly, and not as a modification of it on merits:
(a) The statement of plaintiff No. 1 shall be recorded through
video conferencing strictly in accordance with the Rules for Video
Conferencing for Courts applicable to the subordinate courts of Punjab,
Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh.
(b) The trial Court shall fix the remote point (a court complex or
other facility acceptable under the Rules at or near Mumbai) and appoint a
coordinator there; the identity of the witness shall be verified and the
proceedings shall be recorded and preserved in accordance with the Rules.
(c) The defendants shall be at liberty to put to the witness any
document on which they rely. The documents shall be supplied in advance,
by the mode prescribed in the Rules, to the coordinator at the remote
point, in sufficient time for the witness to be shown the documents during
cross-examination. The plaintiff No.1 shall bear the expenses of the video
conferencing arrangements, unless the trial Court orders otherwise.
(d) The observation in the impugned order that the defendants
have no reason to put any document to the plaintiff shall not be read as
restricting the defendants' cross-examination. Nothing in this order shall
limit the scope of cross-examination.
(e) The trial Court may pass such further orders as the
circumstances may require, if effective cross-examination is not possible
Page No. 6 of 7 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.11.05 15:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7690-2026
through video conferencing.
18. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the suit, the Will or the transfer
deed relied upon by the defendants. A copy of this order shall be sent to
the trial Court by e-mail for compliance.
19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
( DEEPAK GUPTA )
JUDGE
November 04, 2026
Neetika Tuteja
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Page No. 7 of 7 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.11.05 15:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document