Disposed

Aditya Goel v. Akashdeep Goel

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jun 2024WP227/428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of an application to examine a witness via video conferencing. The High Court directed the Trial Court to reconsider the prayer under relevant V.C. Rules and pass a speaking order within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to reconsider the application for examination of witness through video conferencing under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC and pass a speaking order within 15 days.

Aditya Goel Vs Akashdeep Goel — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP227 No. 428 of 2024

¶4

Aditya Goel S/o Shri Satish Goel, Aged About 42 Years R/o Ramkunj6, Ambajhari Layout, Nagpur, District Nagapur, (Maharashtra)

¶5

2. Satish Goel, S/o Late Shri Murarilal Goel, Aged About 69 Years R/o Civil Lines, Nagpour (Maharashtra) --- Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Akashdeep Goel S/o Shri Omprakash Goel, Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 12, Slice-5 Scheme No. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, District Indore, (Madhya Pradesh), Present Address Goel Building, Kewramunda, Sahidpark Road, Jagdalpur, Sahidpark Road, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As House No. 2 In The Impugrd Order)

¶8

Om Prakash Goel S/o Late Shri Murarilal Goel, Aged About 72 Years R/o 42 Pragati Vihar, Bicholi, Mardana, Indore District Indore Madhya Pradesh

¶9

Ghanshyam Das Goel S/o Late Shri Murarilal Goel, Aged About 70 Years R/o Goel Kothi, Balaji Ward, Sahid Park Road Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Sangeeta Poddar, W/o Shri Sushil Poddar, D/o Late Shakuntala Devi, Ro Laxmi Bhawan, 4th Floor, D- Road, Marine Driver, Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶11

Sanjeev Choudhary S/o B.P. Choudhary, R/o B-2, 3 Binni Lane, Permaburbeka, Road Pattalam, Chennai Tamil Nadu 600012.

¶12

Sunil Choudhary S/o B.P. Choudhary, R/o 7/25, Ansari Road, Mahavir Lane, Dariyaganj, Delhi 110002 (Through In Impuganed Order Adress Is Mentioned As 7225, Dariyaganj Delhi)

¶13

Smt. Sharda Bijoriya D/o Ramesh Bijoria, R/o Bijoria Construction Company, Balaji Chowk, Yawatmal, Maharashtra

¶14

Tekchand Mulchandani S/o Vyaparimal Mulchandani Aged About 60 Years R/o Kewramunda Ward Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Parasamal Khatri Aged About 55 Years R/o Laxhmi Aann Bhandar, Sanjay Market Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶16

---- Respondents.

¶17

(CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY)

¶18

----------------------------- For Petitioner	------------------------------------------------------------------ : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate
	through V.C. with Mr. Chetan Singh Chouhan, Advocate in person.
For Res. No.1 --------------------------------	: Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 03.06.2024

¶20

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.01-A/2018 whereby application (IA No.6 therein) filed by the plaintiff/petitioner seeking permission to examine the witness through video conferencing or appointment of Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 1 of CPC, has been rejected.

¶21

At the outset, learned Senior Counsel submits that The Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts of the Chhattisgarh State (for short “ V.C. Rules ”) has been made by the High Court of Chhattisgarh and same was published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette on 27.06.2020 and came into force with effect from the 27.06.2020. In support of his contention he refers to Notification issued by this High Court bearing Notification No.6892/Rules/2021, Bilaspur dated 16.07.2021. He further submits that the V.C. Rules also provide procedure for recording the evidence of witness through video conferencing in civil cases. Learned senior counsel also submits that the application was moved by the petitioner/plaintiff before the Trial Court vide IA No.6 for recording the evidence of plaintiff Satish Goel through video conferencing or appointment of Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 1 of CPC on the ground that he is aged about 69 years and suffering from age relates ailments and it is not convenient for him to travel from Nagpur (Maharashtra) to

¶22

Jagdalpur. However, without considering such aspects and the relevant Rules framed by the High Court, the Trial Court has rejected the said application by the impugned order.

¶23

Lastly, he submits that suitable direction may be issued to the Trial Court to reconsider the said application in light of the V.C. Rules framed by the High Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection in respect of prayer made for reconsideration of application for examination of plaintiff Satish Goel in light of said V.C. Rules.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶26

This High Court has already made V.C. Rules for the Courts of Chhattisgarh and same came into force w.e.f. 27.06.2020. On perusal of the impugned order, it is explicit that both the parties have not brought to the notice of the Trial Court the relevant Rules. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to reconsider the prayer for examination of witness through video conferencing or appointment of Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 1 of CPC. The trial Court shall thereafter pass a speaking order within outer limit of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶27

Further, both the parties are at liberty to supplement their submission in the light of afore-stated V.C. Rules and it is expected that both the parties shall cooperate for the progress of the trial without causing any delay.

¶28

It is also observed that the trial Court shall consider the reasons/submission assigned by both the parties while considering the prayer for recording of evidence through V.C. and shall pass fresh order in spirit of said V.C. Rules.

¶29

With the aforesaid observation and direction this petition stands disposed of .

¶30

Ancillary Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶33

Ajay

Aditya Goel v. Akashdeep Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Goel v. Akashdeep Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sanil Khande

Sanil Khande Vs Gondi Yadav

C. P. Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Mukesh Kujur Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Tandon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khemant Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh