Balram Sansoa v. Vinod Kumar Drall and Others

IN THE

Balram Sansoa Vinod Kumar CORAM : HO

Present: San

AMARJOT BH

1.

Pet revision against learned Civil J Judge (Junior

19.03.2026 (An present physica without any val

2.

Lea filed suit (Ann consequential r K.C.Chibber an petitioner along Section 151 CP trial Court vide

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CR

Da a V/S Drall and Others N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMA ndeep Khunger, Advocate for th

**** HATTI J. (ORAL) titioner/defendant No.4 Balram t impugned order dated 30.04.2 Judge (Junior Division), Gurugr Division), Gurugram has mo nnexure P-4) and directed the pe ally from United Kingdom fo id justification. arned counsel for petitioner poin nexure P-1) for specific perf relief of permanent injunction a nd Surender Yadav. During th g with others filed application u PC for impleading them as defen order dated 07.07.2025 (Annex - B AND HARYANA AT H R-4854-2026 ate of decision : 03.09.2026 ...... Petitioner ..... Respondent ARJOT BHATTI e petitioner. m Sansoa filed present civil 2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by ram whereby the learned Civil odified the earlier order dated etitioner/defendant No.4 to come or remaining cross-examination nted out that Vinod Kumar Drall formance and declaration with against Stephen Kumar Sansoa he pendency of the suit, present under Order 1 Rule 10 read with ndants which was allowed by the xure P-2). The written statement

r ts

l y l d e n l h , t h e t

filed by them i filed application through video c Civil Judge ( (Annexure P-4) examination wa DW-5 is Ann conferencing h alone, to which could give reply presence of pet further cross-ex Annexure P-6. judgment of Bo

11.07.2008 case by applying the Act, 1872 that i document and a rest of the porti requirement fo physically for f conferencing fo required to be c

s Annexure P-3. Thereafter, p n seeking permission of the Cou conferencing. The said applicati Junior Division), Gurugram ). His statement was being rec as also going on. The cross-exam nexure P-5. During the cro e was confronted with the do he as a witness insisted to show y to the said question. At this po titioner/defendant No.4 as DW-5 xamination. The corresponding z Learned counsel representing ombay High Court in Writ Petiti e titled 'H.N. Rai Vs. Ajay Moh e principles of Section 159, 160 it would be unfair for the witnes asking him to identify his sign ion of the document. It is furth or the present petitioner as D further cross-examination as the for Courts and according to th conducted. On this point, he ha - resent applicant/defendant No.4 urt for recording of his statement ion was also allowed by learned vide order dated 19.03.2026 corded as DW-5 and the cross-mination of present petitioner as ss-examination through video ocument by showing signatures w the entire document so that he oint of time, Court observed that 5 was required in the Court for zimni order dated 30.04.2026 is g petitioner has referred to the ion No.4281 of 2008 decided on han' where it was observed that and 161 of the Indian Evidence ss to deny him benefit of seeing ature on document by covering er pointed out that there was no DW-5 to appear in the Court re are elaborate Rules for video hat his cross-examination was as relied upon Rule 9 of Model

t d - s o s e t r s e n t e g g o t o s l

Rules in Volum runs as under:- "9.

(1) ens

(a) pro vid

(b)

(c) pla

(d) ind per dev cou

(2) or oth in app rel con

me-V, Chapter-1-H of the High . Preparatory arrangements )The coordinator at the design sure that; ) the required persons schedu oceeding are ready at the rem deo conferencing well before the ) no unauthorized recording devi no unauthorized person enters ace when the video conference is ) the person being examined is duced or coerced in any mann rson being examined does not r vice without the permission of t urse of examination. ) Where the witness to be exami other audiovisual electronic co herwise expedient to do so, the C advance, setting out the schedu propriate cases may provide the levant documents in electronic f ncerned remote point. - Court Rules and Orders, which nated place/remote point shall uled to appear in a particular mote point/designated place for scheduled time; ice is used; the remote point or designated s in progress; not prompted, tutored, coaxed, ner by any person and that the refer to any document, script or the Court concerned during the ined through video conferencing ommunication requires or if it is Court shall give sufficient notice ule of video conferencing and in e copies of all or any part of the form to the coordinator of the

h l r r d , e r e g s e n e e

(3) ens rec doc ref doc onl

(4) the

(a) con

(b) is i

(c) cas tem

(d) exa

It i the impugned o by accepting pr Court through DW-5.

) Before the scheduled video sure that the coordinator at the d ceives in electronic form, cop cuments which may be required f ference of the witness. However cuments in electronic form to b ly with the permission of the Cou ) Whenever required, the Court e Remote Point or at the Court P ) a translator in case the p nversant with the official languag ) an expert in sign languages in impaired in speech and/or hearin an interpreter or a special ed se a person to be examined mporarily or permanently; ) a person for reading of docum amined is visually challenged." is submitted that keeping in view order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexu resent civil revision and he ma video conferencing for his r - conferencing, the Court shall designated place or remote point pies of all or any part of the for recording of evidence, or for r, coordinator shall allow such be used by the required person urt. t shall order the coordinator at Point to provide-erson to be examined is not ge of the court; case the person to be examined ng; ducator, as the case may be, in d is differently abled, either ments in case the person to be w the aforesaid factual position ure P-6) may kindly be set aside ay be allowed to appear in the emaining cross-examination as

l t e r h n t t d n r e , e e s

3.

Th present civil rev would be served dispensed with.

4.

I h record. The co Kumar Drall consequential re dated 17.01.201 holder dated 0 Kumar Sansoa defendant No.4 Section 151 CP Gurugram vide 6 including the which he denied sell their share o

Tri that the case wa petitioner Balra (Junior Division conferencing v examination co examination wa

e petitioner has annexed all the vision for proper adjudication o d by issuing notice to the respond

have considered the arguments ontents of plaint (Annexure P-filed suit for specific perfo elief of permanent injunction on 11 executed by defendant No.2 b

08.06.2001 of defendant No.1. is the brother of present petition 4 on filing his application und PC which was allowed by learne order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexu present petitioner filed written d to have authorized either defen of property to the plaintiff. ial in this case is going on. Th as pending for defendant's evide am Sansoa was being recorded as n), Gurugram allowed his appli vide order dated 19.03.2026 onducted on him as DW5 is An as already completed. Further - e relevant documents along with of the present case. No purpose dent and the same is accordingly s as well as the documents on 1) indicate that plaintiff Vinod ormance and declaration with n the basis of agreement to sell being general power of attorney Said defendant No.1 Stephen ner who was later-on arrayed as der Order 1 Rule 10 read with ed Civil Judge (Junior Division) ure P-2). The defendant Nos.4 to n statement (Annexure P-3) vide ndant No.1 or defendant No.2 to he documents on record indicate ence and the statement of present s DW5. The learned Civil Judge ication to appear through video (Annexure P-4). The cross-nnexure P-5. Substantial cross-cross-examination was deferred

h e y n d h l y n s h , o e o e t e o - - d

as the witness w rest of the docu entire documen Court vide impu person for furth

5.

In facts and passin trial Court. It i him. The condu refused to give would have g examination an conferencing el the witness cou document. Sinc and for this pur him to appear in is residing in U video conferenc any valid reaso person for furth P-6).

Th No.4 is accepte

was confronted with a documen ument was covered, to which th nt for giving appropriate reply. ugned order dated 30.04.2026 d her cross-examination. the light of aforesaid factual p ng of impugned order dated 30.0 is the prerogative of witness to g uct, demeanor of the witness ca e reply without seeing the doc given his observation on this nd to confront him with a aborate rules have been framed uld have been cross-examined by e the witness refused to give rep rpose alone, the learned trial Cou n person for further cross-exami United Kingdom and he was alr cing vide order dated 19.03.2026 on to modify the said order by her cross-examination vide order erefore, present civil revision p ed and impugned order dated 30 - nt by showing his signatures and he witness insisted to show the At this stage, the learned trial directed the witness to appear in position, I have considered the

04.2026 (Annexure P-6) by the give reply to the question put to an be noted down if the witness ument. The learned trial Court s point, otherwise the cross-any document through video as referred above. Accordingly y confronting him with the said ply without seeing the document urt was not justified by insisting ination. Admittedly, the witness eady allowed to appear through 6 (Annexure P-4). I do not find calling upon him to appear in r dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure preferred by petitioner/defendant

0.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) is set

d e l n e e o s t - o , d t g s h d n e t t

aside with the examination of rules framed the year 2016, learn

6.

Pen accordingly as w

03.09.2026. Sunil Devi

direction to learned trial Cou witness as DW-5 through video ereon as referred above. Since ned trial court is directed to expe nding miscellaneous application well.

(AM

: Yes/No : Yes/No - urt to continue with the cross-conferencing as per the specific the civil suit is pertaining to the edite the trial. n(s), if any, stand disposed of MARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE

- c e f