Mumbai Senior Citizen May Testify By Video In Sibling Inheritance Suit, With Safeguards For Cross-Examination: P&H HC

The petitioner, defendant No. 2 in a suit for declaration based on inheritance, challenged an order permitting plaintiff No. 1 to give evidence by video conferencing.

Plaintiff No. 1 stated that she was a senior citizen with physical ailments, lived in Mumbai, and could not undertake the journey to Fazilka.

The petitioner objected that no medical evidence had been produced and that remote testimony would impede cross-examination, particularly the putting of documents to the witness.

The trial Court allowed the application, reasoning in part that there was no reason for the defendants to put documents to her.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction; intervention is generally limited to jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest miscarriage of justice, and does not permit substitution of the High Court’s view for a reasonable decision of the trial Court (Waryam Singh v. Amarnath; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai; Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil; M/s Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel).

Order XVIII Rules 4 and 19 CPC and Order XXVI CPC provide for the recording of evidence, including on commission, while Section 151 CPC preserves the Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.

Video-conferencing may satisfy the requirement that a witness be “present” before the Court (State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai), and technology may be used in civil evidence proceedings (Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India).

The applicable Video Conferencing Rules provide safeguards for remote evidence, including identity verification, coordination at the remote point, document transmission, recording of demeanour, and preservation of the audio-visual record.

The Court held that a medical certificate is not a legal precondition to video testimony and found the request reasonable given the witness’s senior-citizen status, residence in Mumbai, and the distance from Fazilka; the petitioner’s contrary assertion about her health was also unsupported.

The trial Court’s view that the defendants had no reason to put documents to the witness was unsound, because the defendants were entitled to cross-examine her about the Will, transfer deed, and other documents.

However, the Video Conferencing Rules provide procedures for supplying and showing documents remotely, and any practical difficulty could be addressed through those safeguards and further directions.

Since the evidence and cross-examination had not yet occurred, the objection was premature; the trial Court could require physical attendance or further examination on commission if effective cross-examination proved impossible.

The order therefore disclosed no ground for supervisory intervention under Article 227.

The High Court directed that plaintiff No. 1’s evidence be recorded in accordance with the applicable Video Conferencing Rules, with a suitable remote point and coordinator, identity verification, preservation of the proceedings, and advance transmission of documents for cross-examination.

The defendants’ right to put documents and the full scope of cross-examination were preserved; the trial Court may issue further directions, including requiring physical appearance or further cross-examination, if remote examination proves ineffective.