Karnataka High Court Allows Senior Citizen To Record Probate Evidence From Residence In USA
The Court relaxed Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules after noting that the probate proceedings were uncontested and public notice had not invited any objections.
The Karnataka High Court has permitted a senior citizen residing in the United States of America to record her evidence in uncontested probate proceedings from her residence, without routing the video conferencing process through the Indian Embassy.
The Court relaxed the requirement of a coordinator at the remote point under Rule 5.1 and the requirement of routing overseas video conferencing through the Indian Consulate, Embassy or High Commission under Rule 5.3.1 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020.
A Bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed: “In addition, as these proceedings are uncontested and the public notice issued by the learned Trial Court did not evoke any response, this Court also deems it apposite to relax the Rule 5.3.1, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 18 of the Video Conferencing Rules, and permit the petitioner to record her evidence from her residence in the United States of America. The Requirement of a Co-ordinator at the remote point, as contemplated under Rule 5.1 and the routing of the proceedings through the Embassy under Rule 5.3.1 will be relaxed subject to safeguards.”
Advocate Sameer Sharma appeared for the petitioner.
Background
The petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking directions to the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, to decide an interlocutory application filed in pending probate proceedings. She also sought relaxation of Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules so that her evidence could be recorded from a secure, pre-verified location in the USA.
The probate petition had been filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in respect of the Will of the petitioner’s late husband. The petitioner claimed to be the sole beneficiary and executrix under the Will. During the pendency of those proceedings, she moved applications seeking permission to lead evidence through video conferencing from the United States.
It was submitted that after her husband’s demise, the petitioner, being a senior citizen, had relocated to the USA to live with her son, as she had no relatives in India who could provide familial care. It was further submitted that she was a permanent resident in the USA, which placed certain restrictions on her travel.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC, read with the Video Conferencing Rules, for the appointment of a Court Commissioner to record her evidence through video conferencing from the USA. However, despite arguments having been advanced, the application had not been decided.
The Court recorded the petitioner’s submission that the proceedings before the Trial Court were non-adversarial in nature and that Rules 5.1, 5.3.1 and 18 of the Video Conferencing Rules could be relaxed in the facts of the case.
Rule 5.1 requires a coordinator at the court point and the remote point, while Rule 5.3.1 provides that where the required person is overseas, the remote point coordinator shall be an official of the Indian Consulate, relevant Indian Embassy or relevant High Commission of India. Rule 18 empowers the High Court to relax any rule where its operation causes undue hardship.
The Court also noted the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in Richa Mishra v. State of Karnataka (2025), where, while examining the Video Conferencing Rules, it was held that the power to relax any rule, particularly where the deponent is outside the country, vests only with the High Court.
The Bench found that public notices had been issued in two newspapers, but there were no objectors to the Will. Since the probate petition remained uncontested, the matter had been fixed for the petitioner’s evidence, after which she filed applications seeking permission to depose through video conferencing and for the appointment of a Court Commissioner.
The Court further noted that the probate proceedings related to a Will under which the petitioner had been named as executrix, and that the matter had been pending for about a year without contest.
In these circumstances, the Court held that it was appropriate to exercise the power under Rule 18 and relax Rule 5.3.1, allowing the petitioner to record her evidence from her residence in the USA without routing the process through the Indian Embassy.
The Court, however, imposed safeguards. It directed the petitioner to file an undertaking before the Trial Court that she would not disconnect or permit any obstruction during the recording of her evidence. It further directed that if any disconnection was attributable to her, the entire evidence tendered by her would stand discarded. The Trial Court was also given liberty to impose additional safeguards to ensure fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition and permitted the petitioner to record her evidence without availing the services of the Indian Embassy.
The Court relaxed the rigour of Rule 5.1 read with Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, subject to the safeguards imposed by it. It also directed the Trial Court to decide the probate proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months.
Cause Title: Rekha Gupta v. Nil (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:33394)