Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) The petitioner-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 12.03.2015, (Annexure P-3), whereby, an application moved under Order 18, Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC ) for granting permission for examination of plaintiff no.1-Satpal Dhawan through Video Conferencing on the ground that he is stated to be suffering from ill health and unable to appear before the Court being resident of USA, has been dismissed.
(2.) Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Anshul Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiffs submits that mode of examination of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C., through Video Conferencing and appearance of a witness through Video Conferencing has been considered permissible in criminal proceedings by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053. By relying upon the aforementioned judgment, two High Courts of this country, namely, Calcutta High Court and Delhi High Court held that evidence of witness in civil case can be recorded through video conferencing by deputing concerned Registrar of the Court as a Coordinator with regard to technical aspects. He further relies upon the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Textiles Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan, 1983(1) SCC 228 to contend that law must constantly be on the move adapting itself to the fast changing society and not lag behind and thus, urges this Court for setting aside of the impugned order while allowing the permission as sought in the application.
(3.) Mr. S.S. Goripuria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that plaintiffs have already taken much time in not examining the witness. The application was not supported by any medical certificate with regard to ill health of plaintiff no.1. The video conferencing can be permitted in the criminal case but not in civil matters, for, without exploring the technical aspect and feasibility, recording of the statement cannot be ordered at the drop of the hat. Plaintiff has to be confronted with various documents which is not possible in the aforementioned process and thus, urges this Court for affirming the findings rendered in the impugned order by dismissing the revision petition.;