The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's rejection of video conferencing applications. The court held that persistent delays and failure to examine a key party constituted defeated ends of justice.
The writ petition was dismissed and costs of Rs. 10,000 were awarded to the defendants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 5
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 142 of 2022
---- Petitioners
Versus
(b) Dr. Raman Jogi S/o Late Satyaranjan Jogi, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Director New Mishon Hospital Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
(c) Ratin Jogi S/o Late Satyaranjan Jogi, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Jogi Gali Jarhabhata, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (d) Dr. Rakshit Jogi S/o Late Satyaranjan Jogi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o E.N.T. Hospital CIMS Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
(e) Dipeeka Joseph W/o Vikas Joseph, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Jogi Gali Jarhabhata, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 1 i.e. Satyaranjan Jogi has died and the legal heirs are already substituted in the original civil suit but they are wrongly not included in the impugned order).
(b) Amit Jogi Aged About 59 Years, Anugrah Sagon Bangla Civil Line Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate with Shri Aman Ansari, Advocate.
Page 2 of 5
For Respondent No.1(c) : Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
08-08-2022
Heard.
The above stated statements of law aptly and perfectly apply to the facts of the case in hand.
Page 3 of 5
have acquired citizenship of that country. Earlier, the application under Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC for examination and cross-examination of petitioner No.1 for commission was rejected by learned trial Court on 24-12-2016. The review against that order was also dismissed on 07-04-2017 and WP227 filed against that order was allowed by coordinate Bench of this Court in WP227 No.400/2017 vide order dated 24-10-2017 and petitioner No.1 was directed to be examined by the Commissioner appointed by the trial Court.
Thereafter petitioner No.1 appointed special power of attorney holder to prosecute the case on her behalf. Petitioner No.1 moved an application on 11-01-2022 for examination and cross-examination of petitioner No.1 through video conferencing, but the same was rejected vide order dated 09-02-2022. A review application was filed before the trial Court and the same was also rejected on 16-02-2022. Learned trial Court vide order dated 09-02-2022 recorded the earlier proceedings as under:-
Page 4 of 5
of plaintiff No.1 through video conferencing. The application for examination of plaintiff through video conferencing was rejected. On 06-02-2020 opportunity was granted to lead evidence on commission. On 23-03-2020 and 24-03-2020 last opportunity was granted to lead evidence, and again the petitioners had moved application for examination of plaintiff No.1 through video conferencing and the same was rejected vide order dated 09-02-2022. Again a review application was moved before learned trial Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16-02-2022.
Page 5 of 5
petitioner No.1 through video conferencing was filed and again many opportunities were granted by learned trial Court, but till date she has not been examined. During disposal of these applications an application was also moved for appointment of power of attorney holder, who also did not appear before the Court to adduce the evidence. On 18-10-2016 affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC was filed by petitioner No.1 but till date she has not been examined or re-examined in any mode.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Aadil
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court acted correctly in rejecting the petitioners' application for examination of the plaintiff via video conferencing.
Whether the delay in producing key parties amounts to a denial of justice under Article 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anita Kushwaha Vs. Pushap SudanExplained¶23
(2016) 8 SCC 509, Anita Kushwaha Vs. Pushap Sudan · Who else cites this
Noor Mohammed Vs. JethanandExplained¶25
(2013) 5 SCC 202, Noor Mohammed Vs. Jethanand · Who else cites this
Hussain and Others Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶45
(2017) 5 SCC 702, Hussain and Others Vs. Union of India · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sarla Raman Jogi
Nitisha Jogi
Minal Jogi
Rajiv Jogi
Dr. Raman Jogi
Ratin Jogi
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
