Witness evidence may be recorded through video conferencing where age and health justify remote appearance.

Dr. K. Balasundaram, the plaintiff in O.S.No.581 of 2012 before the Third Additional District Court, Coimbatore, instituted a suit for partition and allotment of a one-third share, declaration that an earlier decree was null and void, and permanent injunction against alienation of the suit properties.

When the suit reached the plaintiff’s evidence stage, he sought permission under I.A.No.8 of 2025 to appear and give evidence as P.W.1 through video conferencing. The plaintiff was approximately 72 years old, practised as a doctor in London, had undergone bypass surgery, and had been advised against long-distance travel.

Although he had previously appeared physically before the trial court on three occasions, the defendants did not cross-examine him, resulting in closure of the plaintiff’s evidence on 29.11.2021. The defendants subsequently obtained orders reopening the case and recalling P.W.1 for cross-examination.

The trial court allowed the plaintiff’s application for examination through video conferencing. Defendants 1 and 7 challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in permitting the plaintiff, an aged witness residing abroad and suffering from post-surgery health difficulties, to give evidence and undergo cross-examination through video conferencing rather than appearing physically before the court.

2. Whether the principles in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, concerning the recording of evidence in cases involving complex questions of title, fraud, forgery, or partition, required the plaintiff’s physical presence in the present case.

3. Whether the trial court’s order suffered from perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which permits interference with a subordinate court’s order only where the order suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity, or other serious legal infirmity.

It relied on the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2026, which apply to courts and tribunals in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and prescribe safeguards and procedures for conducting proceedings and recording evidence through video conferencing.

The Court considered Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005 (6) SCC 344, which held that where evidence is recorded through an advocate commissioner in matters involving complex questions of title, fraud, forgery, or complicated partition issues, examination should ordinarily take place before the court rather than before the commissioner.

The Court distinguished that principle from a situation where the evidence is recorded directly by the trial court, with only the witness appearing remotely through video conferencing.

The Court held that the concern expressed in Salem Advocate Bar Association was directed against delegating the recording of evidence to an advocate commissioner in complex cases, and did not prohibit a court from recording evidence through video conferencing itself.

The plaintiff’s advanced age, bypass surgery, medical advice against long-distance travel, and residence in London justified permitting remote appearance.

The Court also noted that the defendants had failed to cross-examine the plaintiff despite his physical presence on three earlier occasions, and that the case had been reopened at their instance only thereafter.

Since the trial court would retain control over the examination and cross-examination, and the 2026 Video Conferencing Rules supplied safeguards for effective proceedings, the presence of multiple documents or alleged complexity did not, by itself, require the plaintiff to appear physically.

The Court further considered the underlying suit to involve issues of partition and challenge to a decree that could be addressed through video-conference evidence, and found no perversity in the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

It found that Salem Advocate Bar Association did not require his physical presence and that the trial court’s order disclosed no perversity warranting interference under Article 227.

Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, without costs.

The Third Additional District Court, Coimbatore, was directed to dispose of O.S.No.581 of 2012 within four months from receipt of the High Court’s order, with strict compliance with the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2026.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.