18. But, when it comes to comprehensive civil suits, where complex issues are involved, the Court should be cautious in allowing a party to lead evidence through video conferencing. Mere delay, expense or inconvenience cannot be a ground to allow a litigant to have an alternate mode of leading ocular evidence. The discretion should be better left to the trial Court where the litigations are pending for consideration. The present petitioner after lapse of 10 years has filed an application seeking rejection of plaint. It is only after rejection of the plaint, the petitioner who has never appeared before the Court has come up with this application, which is not supported by an affidavit, but is accompanied by the memorandum of facts of the counsel on record. Therefore, the present petitioner-defendant has clearly demonstrated that his object is to prevent a fair trial. He is not merely purporting to invoke his right of access to the Court, but the material on record clearly indicates that his real object is not to have a fair trial at all. If the Court wish to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrupt, in my view the Court should be slow in make decisions favoring those who set out to use the Court process to their advantage. In conclusion, this Court is of the view that the Court was justified in being reluctant to entertain the relief sought in the application as it clearly appeared to the trial Court that the petitioner is determined to subvert the adjudicative process by adopting dilatory tactics. The Court has rightly examined the petitioner's conduct with reference to the overall interest of justice and has declined to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and the same does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ”
