and Ranjit Kaur in photograph of marriage Ex.P-20. He also refused to recognize Joginder Singh in photograph Ex.P21. He admitted that Joginder Singh is his real maternal uncle but stated that photograph of Joginder Singh might be lying in the house. When the Court had, in said circumstances, deferred the cross-examination, directing the witness to find the photographs of Joginder Singh, there was no obstacle in permitting the petitioner to display the video cassette to confront him the factum that father of said witness had performed ‘milni’ with father of the plaintiff. While passing the impugned order dated August 24, 2009, the trial Court observed that counsel for the applicant had failed to convince the Court what facts were sought to be proved by confronting the contents of the video cassette to the witness. It is made clear that the controversy in the suit pertains to establishment of relationship and as per Section 50 of the Evidence Act, when a Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact. Besides this, the video cassette if permitted to be played on a laptop in the Court, it will only permit the Court to examine the worthiness and credibility of the witness.
