Sri V.K.Ramdas, v. Smt.Malini Vijay Kumar,
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 3378 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3805 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia, against the order Dated 03.09.2025 passed in 1.A.No.415 of 2023 in o.s.No.658 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad' Between:
1. Sri V.K.Ramdas, S/o.Late V.Krrshna Sharma (since dled)
2. Sri R.Anand,, S/o Late V.K.Ramdas, Aged 53 years, Occ Private Employee' - R/o Hour. No.2_2-185/56/G/1 , Somasundaiam Nagar, BaghAmberpet, Hyderabad-500 013.
...Petitioner/Petitioen rs/Defendants
AND Smt.Malini Vijay Kumar,, Wo Sri Vijay Kumal Age^d 4! y-eap' Oc9 H;;ilif;, Cazg, sr"a Dog Rd, Brahrpton, oN LoR oJ6, Canada ...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further pioceedings in O S.No 6-5-8 of 2016 by suspending. -the [peration ot the Order in l.A.No4i5 of 2024 dt.3.9.2025 on the file of the XXV RAOitionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad pending disposal of the main C.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RUPENDRA MAHENDERA Counsel for the ResPondent:- The Court made the following: ORDER
i ',j THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SA]TI KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITTON NO.3805 0t 2025 ORDER:
1 .
The instant Civil Revision petition has beer filed assailing the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the XXV ,t lditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter. referred to as "the Trial Court") in I.A.No.4i5 of 2023 in O.S. Nr 658 ot 2016. 2.
By the impugned docket order, the Trial Co. rt allowed the petition Iiled by the respondent/ plaintiff seekir-rr1 permission to record her evidence as PW. 1 through online :r :,de by using video-conference facilities and, for that purpose, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.
3.
The Trial Court accordingly allowed the zL ,plication and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record t L,: er.idence of PW. 1, directing that the plaintiff shall pay the C rrnmissioner,s fee. This order is now under challenge.
4.
The objections raised by the petitioners /,1 :fenclants are primarily that (i) the affidavit seeking permission to record the evidence of PW.1 online was sworn to by the cr :msel for the plaintiff, (ii) the request for recording evidence ., rough online
o mode was not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the High Court, and (iii) the grounds for such request were not substantiated with cogent evidence.
5.
In the present case, the suit is one for partition l-tled by the plaintiff against her father and brother. The plaintiff resides in Canada. In today's world, where technolory is widely accessible and routinely used in judicial proceedings, recording evidence through virtual mode has become common, especially when parties or witnesses live far away from the Court, where litigation is pending. When video-conference facilities are available, insisting on physical appearance would be unnecessary and inconvenient to the parties.
6.
The objections raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants regarding the afhdavit having been affirmed by the plaintiffs counsel, the alleged non-compliance with guidelines, and the absence of detailed justification are hyper-technical. The petitioners/ defendants wili still have an opportunity to cross-examine PW.1 and advance all their objections in the original suit. No prejudrce is caused merely because the evidence will be recorded online. On the other hand, insisting on physical appearance would cause inconvenience to the plaintiff and leads to unavoidable
l'-4iiE-.r:-!F.!tz ',, .'.
,/ J complications. Recording evidence through virlr:, canfslsngg i, now widely accepted and permitted at all levels 7 .
Therefore, the Trial Court,s decision i.l allowing the application cannot be found faulted. lt is neith: prejudicial to the parties nor contrary to law. Convenience cl the parties is also a relevant consideration, which the Trial C,) lrt has rightly taken note of.
8.
In view of the above, this Court flnds rl grouncls to interfere with the impugned docket order.
o The Civi.l Revision Petition accordingly stanl r dismissed Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pe r Cing, if any, shall stand closed.
sbl- e.n.s; GowRl SHANKAR ASSlI TANT REGISTRAR /.
,,:
/TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 'l The XXV Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court' at Fr Jerabad
2. One CC to SRI RUPENDRA MAHENDERA Advocate [() )UC] 3 Two CD CoPies NVB/Sa o
/ I HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 -. --.::-- tlE SIqj rl ,rK'"tj /s"
1tr, t\ E.e I 'llri * \,,, lqT{li -/
ORDER
CRP.No.3805 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION el