Disposed¶33

Naveen Ronald Pereira v. Alloysius S Lobo

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2025WP/30828/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

video conferencing cross-examination; Audio/Video Link evidence recording; Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Karnataka High Court writ petition GM-CPC; witness relocated to USA; rejection for want of technical support; liberty for fresh application; Rule 8 Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts Karnataka Gazette 25.06.2020; physical cross-examination of PW.1; Belthangady Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC; O.S.No.1/2014 declaration and possession.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners/plaintiffs to make a fresh application before the Trial Court seeking permission to tender themselves for cross-examination; the Trial Court to consider it in light of the present technical upgradation, and to permit PW.1 to be cross-examined physically. ¶33

Naveen Ronald Pereira Vs Alloysius S Lobo — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners/plaintiffs may be permitted to tender PW.2 for cross-examination through Audio/Video Link notwithstanding the Trial Court's rejection of I.A.No.46 for want of technical support, and what directions should issue for completion of cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2.

¶27

Court's answer

Since a very limited issue is involved, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners/plaintiffs to make a fresh application before the Trial Court seeking permission to tender themselves for cross-examination.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court shall consider the fresh application taking into consideration the present technical upgradation made to the Trial Court.

¶34

Key takeaways

PW.1 shall also tender himself for cross-examination before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court shall permit PW.1 to be cross-examined physically.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Hon'ble Mr Justice M.G.S. Kamal, single judge), Oral Order dated 18.03.2025 in W.P. No. 30828 of 2019 (GM-CPC): Plaintiffs in O.S.No.1/2014 (suit for declaration and possession before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada) challenged the Trial Court's order dated 08.07.2019 rejecting I.A.No.46, filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC, seeking permission to tender PW.2 — a plaintiff relocated to the United States of America — for cross-examination through Audio/Video Link; the rejection rested solely on non-availability of technical support. The Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the plaintiffs to move the Trial Court afresh, directing it to consider the request in light of Rule 8 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts (Karnataka Gazette, Part-IV-A, 25.06.2020) and the technical upgradation since effected, and further directing that PW.1 be permitted to be cross-examined physically.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11092 WP No. 30828 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 30828 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAVEEN RONALD PEREIRA, S/O LATE TIMOTHY PEREIRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO.58, LAL BUILDING, 36, GOA STREET FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001, MAHARASTRA.

¶8

ALWYN PEREIRA, S/O LATE TIMOTHY PEREIRA, RESIDING AT 58, LAL BUILDING, 36, GOA STREET FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001, MAHARASTRA REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. ANIKETH K.U, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ALLOYSIUS S. LOBO, S/O VALERIYAN LOBO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A ALS VIEW, LOBO GARDEN, NEAR P U COLLAGE, MELANTHABETTU VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 124.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11092 WP No. 30828 of 2019

¶15

BIJU THOMAS,

¶16

S/O K.C. THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A KARIYANKAL HOUSE, BARNANAGNAM VILLAGE, CHUDACHERI POST, MINACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA - 686 577.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2024, NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1/2014 IN IA UNDER 18 RULE OF 4 AND SECTION 151 OF CPC THE COURT OF PRL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, D.K. VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.1/2014

¶24

pending consideration on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada, which is filed by them for the relief of declaration and possession against the respondents/defendants, are before this Court being

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:11092 WP No. 30828 of 2019

¶27

aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.46 seeking permission to tender PW.2 for cross-examination through Audio/Video Link.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that examination-in-chief of both plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have been completed as far back as in the year 2019. However, cross-examination could not be done for one or the other reason. In the meanwhile, plaintiff No.2, who has been examined as PW.2 is relocated to United States of America and was unable to make himself physically present for the purpose of cross-examination.

¶29

He submits therefore, a request was made through

¶30

the aforesaid interim application filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC seeking permission to tender himself for cross-examination through Audio/Video Link. The said application was rejected solely on the ground that no technical support was available in the Trial Court to record the evidence through video conference.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11092 WP No. 30828 of 2019

¶32

He further submits that the present situation is different and also in the light of Rule 8 of Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts published in the Karnataka Gazette, Part-IV-A on 25.06.2020, and that now video conference is available, parties are entitled to appear through video conference. Hence he submits liberty be reserved to the petitioners to make fresh application before the Trial Court enabling them to tender for crossexamination. He further submits that in view of the stay, which is granted in this petition, even PW.1 could not proceed with the cross-examination.

¶33

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record. As noted above, since a very limited issue is involved, petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners/plaintiffs to make a fresh application before the Trial Court seeking permission to tender themselves for cross-examination.

¶34