SAHEB TIWARI Vs. LT. ACOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dtd. 7/2/2023 contained in Annexure P/1 by which an application moved by the petitioner/defendant u/S.151 of CPC has been rejected by the Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that a suit for eviction is pending before the Trial Court and respondent/plaintiff has adduced evidence through video conferencing and now the petitioner/defendant is being compelled to cross-examine the plaintiff through video conferencing and as such the petitioner/defendant moved an application u/S.151 of CPC and prayed that the respondent/plaintiff be directed to remain personally present for the purposes of cross-examination. The said application has been declined. The counsel contends that looking to the complex issues involved in the suit, the cross-examination of the petitioner/defendant is required to be carried out physically and not through virtual mode and by placing reliance on the decision of Apex Court in SANTHINI Vs. VIJAYA VENKETSH, (2018) 1 SCC 1 and the decision of High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in T.G.Veeraprasad others Vs. Sri Prakash Gandhi and others (W.P. No.8283 of 2022 (GM-CPC) decided on 1/7/2022) it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Having heard the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order reflects that the plaintiff is Lt. Col. and presently posted in Jammu and Kashmir. The plaintiff has has already submitted his examination-in-chief through virtual mode and the defendant has been extended opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff through video conferencing. The petitioner has failed to make out as to why the plaintiff cannot be examined through video conferencing. The Trial Court while considering the fact that the plaintiff is posted in Jammu and Kashmmir has declined the application filed by the present petitioner u/S. 151 of CPC and, therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the Trial Court has not committed any error in disallowing the application moved by the petitioner/defendant, hence no interference is warranted.