Allowed

M. Preethi Phani v. Syed Mudassir Nawaz

Telangana HC22 Sept 2021CRP/935/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court of Telangana allowed the petition and set aside the lower court's order mandating a coordinator for video conference cross-examination, citing the petitioner's residence in the USA and time zone differences as grounds for relaxation of the Rules.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial court mandating a coordinator was set aside. The respondent is directed to proceed with cross-examination without a coordinator.

M. Preethi Phani Vs Syed Mudassir Nawaz — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYOERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 935 OF 2021

¶8

Petition under A(icle 227 ol lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2021 passed in l.A. no. 203 of 2021 in OP no. 1095 OF 2017 on the file of the Learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M. Preethi Phani, W/o Syed Mudassir Nawaz, aged about^{28 yrs, Occ. Pvt employee,} R/o H.No.5-5-35/E/13, Sai Baba Nagar, Kukatpally, R.R.^{District, presently residingin} USA, Through G.P.A. Chaitanya Ananth, S/o^{M,.V. Giri Rao, Rl/o Manikonda,RR} District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Syed Mudassir Nawaz, S/o late Syed lbrahim^{Nawaz, aged about 28 yrs, Occ. Pvt} employee, R/o H.No. 9-4-801293, Golconda,^Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent SRI MIR MUKARRAM ALI

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK RIIDDY} CIVIL REVISION^{PETTTIO N No. 935 of 20'21}

¶19

oRD ER:

¶20

Heard the learned counsel^{for the petitionerand the learned} counsel for the^respondent.

¶21

Aggrieved by order dated^{15.04.2021passedby the learned} Judge, Additional Family^{Cour1,Hyderabad,allowing I.A.No.203} of 2021 in O.P.No.l095 of^{2017 filed by the respondent-ltusband} for issuing a direction to the^{petitioner-wif'eto fbllowprescribcd} rule of Gazette issued by this Court^{dated 29. 10.2020 fbr} continuation of^proceedings for^{video conference, she tlled this} Civil Revision Petition.

¶22

Learned counsel fbr the^{petitioner has stated that the} respondent has filed I.A.No.203 of 2021in^{O.P'No.1095of 2017} seeking implementation of the^{Rulesfor Video Conlerencingtbr} Cour-ts in the State of Telangana^(for short'the^{Rtlles') and as per} the Rules, whenever cross-examination^{is done throughvideo} conferencing, there is a need to^{appoint a Coordinator to help the} person sought to be cross-examined. He has stated that^the petitioner is residing in United States of America^(USA) and because of the ditterence in the tirne, the^{petitioner is unableto} get proper Coordinator to sit with^. her during the time of cross-examination and that whenever cross-examination^{is being} done through the video conferencing, the time in USA^is

¶23

..'=.---

¶24

AAR, J C.R.P.No.935 of 2021

¶25

¶26

approximately rnidnight and therefore, the petitioner has expressed her difliculty in getting the Coordinators and therefore, has sought indulgence of this Court to set aside the order under revision and has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 18 of the Rules, which reads as follows:

¶27

"18. Porver to Relax.

¶28

Ihe High Court may if satisfied that the operation of any Rule is causing undue hardship, by an order dispense with or relax the requirements of that Ruie to such extent and subj ect to such conditions, as may be stipulated to deal with the case in a just and equitable manner."

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the sarne and stated that the petitioner is obligated under the Rules to get a Coordinator appointed by the Courl and she cannot take frivolous grounds for not having the Coordinator. The petitioner is bound by the Rules framed by this Coufi^and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition^{maybe dismissed.}

¶30

Having given an anxious thought to^{the subrnissions made} by the learned counsel^{and after going through the pleadingsand} also the order of the trial^{Court passed in I.A.No.203 of 2021 in} O.P.No.1095 of²⁰¹⁷ ,^{this Court is of the view that having regard} to the fact that the^{petitioneris stayingin USA and during the} time the^{proceedirrgs are held in lndia,the time in USA wiil be} around midnight.^{It is not possiblefor any persoll, muchless,the} petitioner to find a Coordinator^{who will go to the premisesof the} petitioner and that too^{stay there during the night time' Moreover'}

¶31

¶32

in E-Mail^{correspondencebetweenthe petitioner and the} Coordinator^{from the Consulatein USA' it is categoricallystated} that^{video conferencing cannot be done at the house of the} petitioner^{and they have to come to the Consuiateat the} appointed^{dme, which is fixedby the Counselafter consultation} with^{the Consulate'Admittedly' the Consulate does not work} during^{night time and therefore'even if there is any consultation} by the^{Courl with regard to the time' it would be impossible lbr} the^{Courts in lndia to function during the Consulate working} hours,^{aS, it would be midnight in this countryby then'}

¶33

In view^{of the above'the order underrevision is set aside}

¶34

and the^{respondentis directed to go ahead with the cross-} examination^{of the petitioner withouta Coordinator' lt is made} clear^{that the petitioner shall not take any eogagementduring the} cross-examination^{and seek frivolous adjoumments'The pafiies} shall^{endeavour to completethe cross-examinationin one or two} slttlngs.

¶35

With the^{above, the Civil Revision Petition i:' allorved'} Miscellaneous^{applications,ifany pending'sliall stand}

¶36

disposed^{of. There sha11 be no order as to costs'}

¶37

To,

¶38

Sd/.N.CHANDRASEKHAR^RAO //TRUE^COPY// ASSISTANT q)E.EGISTRAR

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

The Additional^{Family Court' Hyderabad'}

¶41

One CC to^{SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN Advocate[OPUC]} 3. One CC^{to SRI MIR TMUKARRAMALI Advocate IOPUC'} 4. Two CD CoPies 5. One SPare^CoPY x)'

¶42

HIGH^COURT

¶43

DATED:22l0912021

¶44

rl' E s i47A-
!l
I -)
1E 0[I20tl r)
*

¶45

ORDER

¶46

CRP.No.935 ot 2021

¶47

ALLOWING OF THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶48

@,x, \')N,

M. Preethi Phani v. Syed Mudassir Nawaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Preethi Phani v. Syed Mudassir Nawaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandapally , Mangalli Ashok Vs Bharati Hollikeri

Mrs.Rozina Viran Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Gelli Jayaram Yadav Vs Bharathi Hollikeri

Mrs. Anushrce Soni Daga Vs State of Telengana and 4 Others

Syed Ainuddin Arif Vs The State of Telangana

Shankahamuri Yadagiri Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others