MRS. REKHA GUPTA vs NIL
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JULY, 2026
R
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 12610 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS. REKHA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
W/O LATE GIRISH KUMAR GUPTA
R/AT NO.C-803, SPECTRA CYPRESS,
442-4 HAL AIRPORT VARTHUR ROAD,
BANGALORE NORTH,
BANGALORE URBAN,
KARNATAKA – 560 066
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMEER SHARMA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION RELAXING THE RULE 5.3.1 OF THE RULES FOR
VIDEO CONFERENCING FOR COURTS (NOTIFICATION HCC
NO.18/2020 DATED 09.06.2020), IN RECORDING EVIDENCE OF
THE PETITIONER IN P & SC NO.11 OF 2025 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON’BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AND PERMIT THE
PETITIONER TO APPEAR VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE FROM A
SECURE, PRE-VERIFIED LOCATION IN THE USA AND RECORD
HER EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF, AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY
THIS HON’BLE COURT, ETC.
Digitally signed by
SUMATHY KANNAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KARNTAKA
1
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
I.A.No.1/2026
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed
I.A.No.1/2026 dated 25.04.2026 under Order VI Rule 17
and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read
with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking
permission to amend the petition by incorporating the
averments/prayers set out in the application.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
the filing of this petition, the petitioner has been informed
of a ruling of this Court with regard to the relaxing of the
Rules of Video Conferencing, which are relevant to the
case. Hence, this application.
3. This Court has examined the amendment sought for
and in the circumstances of this case, it is necessary for its
2
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
adjudication. Accordingly, and for the reasons set out in
the application, I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petition is ready and will be filed during the course of
the day. It is so directed.
W.P.No.12610/2026
1. The present petition has been filed seeking directions
to the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru Rural, directing the Court of the VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, to
pass orders on and accordingly dispose of the interlocutory
application [I.A.No.4] dated 19.12.2025 in P & SC No.
11/2025 within a fixed time frame, and as expeditiously as
possible. The petitioner has further sought for an
additional prayer to relax the Rule 5.3.1 of the Rules for
Video Conferencing for Courts (Notification HCC
No.18/2020 dated 09.06.2020) [hereinafter referred to as
the “Video Conferencing Rules”], in recording evidence of
the petitioner in P & SC No.11/2025 and permit the
3
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
petitioner to appear via Video Conference from a secure,
pre-verified location in the United States of America (USA)
and record her Examination-in-chief, as deemed
appropriate by this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of one late
Mr. Girish Kumar Gupta, who passed away on 20.09.2024,
leaving behind a duly executed last Will and Testament
dated 06.05.2024, whereby the entirety of his movables
and immovable properties were bequeathed in favour of
the petitioner, who is also named as the sole executrix
under the said Will.
3. The petitioner being the sole beneficiary and
executrix under the Will, had filed a petition under Section
276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter
referred to as the “I.S. Act”], seeking a probate which was
registered as P and SC No.11/2025 before the learned
Trial Court.
4
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
3.1. During the pendency of the proceedings, on
19.12.2025, the petitioner filed an application under
Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, read with the provisions of the Rules for
Video Conferencing for Courts, seeking to conduct
proceedings by Video Conferencing.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that after the demise
of her husband, she being a senior citizen, relocated to
USA to reside with her son given her age of 71 years and
the fact that there were no relatives in India who could
provide for a support of in the form of familial care.
3.3. The petitioner is also presently stated to be a green
card holder [permanent resident in USA], which places on
her certain restrictions on her travel. It is in this backdrop
that the interlocutory application [I.A.No.4] was filed by
the petitioner on 19.12.2025 seeking to appoint a Court
Commissioner for the purpose of recording the petitioner’s
5
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
evidence through Video Conferencing from the United
States of America.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that although the
application [I.A.No.4] and Video Conferencing Rules have
been placed on record on 19.12.2025 and extensive
arguments have been made in the application, the same
has not yet been decided.
4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a senior citizen and this delay is causing
great prejudice to her as she is unable to enjoy the fruits
of the immovable and movable property bequeathed to
her by her late husband.
4.2. The learned counsel, relying on the judgment,
submits that since the proceedings before the learned Trial
Court are non-adversarial in nature, this Court may pass
an order relaxing the applicability of these Rules, more
specifically, Rule 5.1, 5.3.1 and Rule 18 of the Video
Conferencing Rules, which are extracted below:
6
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
Rule 5.1 – Preparatory Arrangements (Coordinator)
“There shall be a Coordinator both at the Court Point and
at the Remote Point from which any Required Person is
to be examined or heard. However, Coordinator may be
required at the Remote Point only when a witness or a
person accused of an offence is to be examined.”
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 5.3.1 –
Sub
Rule
Where the
Advocate or
Required Person
is at the following
The Remote Point
Coordinator shall be:-
Remote Point:-
5.3.1 Overseas An official of an Indian
Consulate / the relevant
Indian Embassy / the
relevant High Commission of
India.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 18 – Power to Relax
“The High Court may if satisfied that the operation of any
Rule is causing undue hardship, by an order dispense
with or relax the requirements of that Rule to such
extent and subject to such conditions, as may be
stipulated to deal with the case in a just and equitable
manner.”
4.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn
the attention of the Court to the judgment passed by the
Co-orwdinate Bench of this Court captioned ‘ Richa Mishra
7
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
1
Vs. the State of Karnataka and another ’ wherein,
while examining the Video Conferencing Rules, as notified
by this Court, the Co-ordinate Bench has laid down certain
guidelines for its applicability and has also held that the
power to relax any Rule therein, specifically where the
deponent is outside the country, vests solely with the High
Court.
5. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a
two-fold contention. Firstly, he submits that a direction
may be issued to the learned Trial Court seeking
expedition of the proceedings and to decide the petition
within a fixed time-frame. Secondly, he submits that the
Rule 5.3.1 also be relaxed, given the circumstances of this
case.
6. The record reflects that despite public notices issued
through publication in ‘Kannada Prabha’ and ‘Indian
Express’, there were no objectors to the Will. Since the
petition remained uncontested, the matter was fixed for
1
NC:2025:KHC:38100
8
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
petitioner’s evidence on 18.06.2025. The petitioner has
thereafter filed I.A.No.3 under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure read with the provisions of the Rules for
Video Conferencing for Courts, seeking permission to
depose evidence through Video Conferencing and I.A.No.4
under Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 read with the provisions of the Rules
for Video Conferencing for Courts, seeking to appoint a
Court Commissioner for the purpose of recording the
petitioner’s evidence through Video Conferencing from the
United States of America, before the learned Trial Court.
7. Upon filing of I.A.Nos.3 and 4, after several dates of
adjournment, the matter is now listed on 04.07.2026
before the learned Trial Court. The order sheet of the
learned Trial Court reflects that the matter has been
adjourned for the petitioner's evidence for the last one
year.
8. An examination of the record also reflects that the
probate proceedings are with respect to a Will dated
9
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
06.05.2024 of the late husband of the petitioner, wherein
the petitioner has been named as the Executrix. The
deceased who was a permanent resident of Bengaluru died
on 29.09.2024. This led to the filing of a petition under
Section 276 of the I.S. Act.
9. In addition, as these proceedings are uncontested
and the public notice issued by the learned Trial Court did
not evoke any response, this Court also deems it apposite
to relax the Rule 5.3.1, in exercise of the powers conferred
under Rule 18 of the Video Conferencing Rules, and permit
the petitioner to record her evidence from her residence in
the United States of America. The Requirement of a Co-
ordinator at the remote point, as contemplated under Rule
5.1 and the routing of the proceedings through the
Embassy under Rule 5.3.1 will be relaxed subject to the
following safeguards:
(i) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before
the learned Trial Court that she shall not
disconnect or permit any obstruction during the
recording of her evidence.
10
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
(ii) In the event of any disconnection attributable
to her, the entire evidence tendered by her shall
stand discarded.
(iii) The Trial Court shall be at liberty to impose
any additional safeguards that may be deemed
necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of
the proceedings.
10. The petition is accordingly allowed . The petitioner
is permitted to record her evidence without availing the
services of the Indian Embassy, and the rigour of Rule 5.1
read with Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules,
2020 is relaxed to this extent, subject to the safeguards
set out in para 9 above.
11. Given the fact that the matter has been pending for
the last one year and without any contest, this Court
deems it apposite to direct the learned Trial Court to
decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within
three months from today.
11
NC: 2026:KHC:33394
WP No. 12610 of 2026
HC-KAR
12. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms.
All pending application(s) shall stand closed.
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
BMV*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
12