1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has set aside the trial court’s orders refusing the petitioners’ request to examine their witnesses through videoconferencing. Acting on the consent of both parties, the Court held that examination of witnesses shall proceed strictly in accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2021, thereby restoring the petitioners’ right to record testimony remotely.
Importantly, the Court directed that all outstanding costs imposed by the trial court must be paid within one week, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma. The Court clarified that if the petitioners fail to deposit the costs, the trial court is free to take appropriate steps under law.
In view of the consensual position, the Court disposed of all four petitions—CM(M) 103/2023, 104/2023, 196/2023, and 197/2023—and the connected applications.
2. Facts
The petitioners had moved the trial court seeking permission to examine their witnesses through videoconferencing. The trial court rejected their request and imposed costs, prompting them to file civil miscellaneous petitions before the High Court.
On 8 February 2023, a coordinate bench issued an interim stay on the operation of the trial court’s orders, referring to the 2021 VC Rules, which regulate remote testimony in Delhi courts. This interim protection continued during the pendency of the petitions.
When the present batch came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioners sought an adjournment on the ground that the grandmother of one of the counsel had suffered a heart attack. Respondents opposed the adjournment, pointing out that multiple advocates were appearing for the petitioners and that the counsel claiming personal difficulty was not the one arguing the matter. They alleged repeated avoidance of hearing.
During the course of the hearing, however, the respondents—acting on instructions—agreed to permit videoconference-based testimony, subject to strict adherence to the 2021 Rules. They nevertheless highlighted that the petitioners had not paid the costs imposed earlier.
3. Issues
The dispute required consideration of two key issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the request for videoconference-based examination of witnesses in light of the applicable 2021 VC Rules.
- Whether the petitioners could be permitted to proceed with remote testimony before clearing the outstanding costs imposed under Section 35B CPC.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued before the High Court that the trial court wrongly denied them the option of examining witnesses through videoconferencing. They submitted that the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2021, expressly enable such examination when warranted for convenience, efficiency, or logistical necessity. Their reliance on the 2021 Rules was the basis on which the earlier bench had stayed the trial court’s orders.
They also contended that the respondents’ opposition to adjournment was unfounded, as the request had been made due to an unexpected medical emergency affecting counsel’s family. According to the petitioners, refusing remote testimony—despite the 2021 Rules—unnecessarily delayed the proceedings and created avoidable hardship for witnesses who were unable to attend physically.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The respondents opposed the adjournment request and argued that the petitioners had repeatedly sought delays, causing prejudice to the ongoing proceedings. They argued that the counsel seeking adjournment was not the lead arguing counsel and that the request was a tactic to secure unnecessary postponement.
However, in the interest of expeditious progress, the respondents stated that they were willing to permit examination through videoconferencing, provided it strictly complied with the 2021 VC Rules. Their primary objection related to the unpaid costs imposed by the trial court, which had remained outstanding despite clear directions.
Relying on Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma, they submitted that the petitioners cannot proceed with trial steps until the mandatory cost orders are satisfied.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court approached the matter primarily through the framework of the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2021, which establish substantive and procedural norms for remote testimony. These Rules acknowledge videoconferencing as a legitimate mode of evidence, subject to safeguards concerning identity verification, administration of oath, recording procedures, and ensuring the witness is not coached or influenced.
In this background, the Court accepted the parties’ consensus that the impugned orders should be set aside to enable virtual examination. The Court implicitly recognised that the trial court’s earlier refusal was inconsistent with the evolving jurisprudence that encourages the use of technology to facilitate access to justice.
Regarding costs, the Court invoked Section 35B CPC, which mandates that costs imposed for causing delay must be paid before the party is permitted to proceed further. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretation in Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma to affirm that non-payment of costs is a legally sustainable ground to restrict procedural steps, unless the court finds justification otherwise.
Therefore, the Court struck a balance: witness examination would be facilitated, but subject to compliance with the cost order.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court directly referenced only one precedent, but it plays a central role:
Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma (2009) — Clarified the mandatory nature of costs under Section 35B CPC, holding that such costs must be paid within the stipulated time, failing which the defaulting party may be barred from taking further steps. The trial court is empowered to enforce consequences, including dismissal or closure of evidence.
While the judgment does not cite additional authorities, it is aligned with broader precedents encouraging use of videoconferencing for evidence, including various Supreme Court and High Court pronouncements endorsing remote testimony as compatible with principles of natural justice.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court noted the respondents’ consent and accordingly set aside the trial court’s refusal to permit virtual examination. The order makes explicit that the testimony shall proceed strictly under the 2021 VC Rules, ensuring safeguards for integrity and procedural regularity.
On costs, the Court emphasised compliance with Manohar Singh, directing the trial court to ensure payment within one week. Importantly, the Court authorised the trial court to pass appropriate orders—including adverse orders—if payment is not made.
The ruling reflects a judicial preference for facilitating swift trial progress, especially when technology can help expedite recording of evidence, while simultaneously upholding procedural discipline through enforcement of cost orders.
9. Conclusion
The High Court set aside the impugned orders and permitted the petitioners’ witnesses to be examined by videoconference according to the 2021 Rules. All petitions and pending applications were disposed of. The Court reinforced the mandatory nature of costs under Section 35B CPC and left it to the trial court to impose consequences if they remain unpaid.
10. Implications
This judgment strengthens the growing judicial acceptance of videoconferencing as a primary mode of witness examination. Trial courts are reminded that they must follow the 2021 VC Rules and cannot refuse remote testimony without cogent reasons.
Simultaneously, parties are warned that cost orders are not symbolic—failure to pay can halt proceedings or attract sanctions. The ruling advances efficiency, reduces delays, and integrates technology more firmly into trial procedure while maintaining procedural accountability.
Case Law References
Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma (2009) — Supreme Court held that costs imposed under Section 35B CPC must be paid within the time stipulated, failing which the defaulting party may face consequences such as dismissal or closure of evidence. Applied directly to the present case.
FAQs
1. Can witnesses be examined through videoconferencing in civil proceedings?
Yes. The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that under the 2021 VC Rules, witnesses may be examined through videoconferencing, subject to safeguards.
2. What happens if a party fails to pay costs imposed by the trial court?
Under Section 35B CPC and Manohar Singh, failure to pay costs may bar the defaulting party from taking steps in the case, including leading evidence.
3. Are videoconference testimonies legally valid?
Yes. As long as they follow the 2021 VC Rules regarding identity, oath, environment, and recording integrity, they are fully valid.
