Failed To Consider Video Conferencing Rules & Technological Infrastructure: Punjab & Haryana HC Allows 78-Year-Old Attesting Witness To A Will To Depose Through VC
The Court noted that the 78-year-old woman was unable to travel due to age and caregiving responsibilities for husband battling stage-IV cancer before his death.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Trial Court order refusing permission to record the testimony of a 78-year-old attesting witness to a Will through video conferencing, observing that the Court below failed to adequately consider the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court and the technological infrastructure available for facilitating judicial proceedings.
The Bench was hearing a revision petition filed by Ashwani Kumar Sharma challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Chandigarh, which had dismissed his application seeking permission for recording the testimony of Dr. Plom Khurana, an attesting witness to a registered Will dated December 21, 1979.
Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed, “It further appears that the learned Trial Court has failed to adequately consider the Rules framed by this Court as well as the technological infrastructure specifically established for facilitating judicial proceedings through video conferencing, including the recording of witness testimony. The very object underlying the implementation of such procedural mechanisms is to ensure that the administration of justice remains accessible, efficient, and adaptable to practical exigencies without causing undue hardship to litigants or witnesses”.
“…the requisite technological infrastructure for conducting proceedings through video conferencing has been made available to all Courts with the object of facilitating access to justice and ensuring expeditious adjudication of cases”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Jatin Bansal appeared for the petitioner.
The dispute relates to succession and inheritance of the estate of Prabha Kanta Sharma, wherein the petitioner had relied upon the registered Will under which the property was allegedly bequeathed in favour of the petitioner and other beneficiaries.
The petitioner submitted that Dr. Khurana, aged around 78 years, was residing in Gurugram and was unable to travel to Chandigarh due to her advanced age and difficult personal circumstances. It was stated that she had been attending to her husband, who was suffering from Stage-IV cancer along with other serious ailments, and was therefore not in a position to undertake travel for recording her evidence.
The Trial Court had rejected the application, observing that mere age, in the absence of any ailment, could not be a ground to exempt the witness from appearing physically and that inconvenience caused due to travel could be compensated.
“Having considered the matter in its entirety, particularly in light of the Video Conferencing Rules framed by this Court and the factual circumstances obtaining in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the request seeking examination of the witness through video conferencing cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified. The witness in question is of advanced age and, as brought to the notice of the Court, has recently suffered the loss of her husband after attending to his prolonged medical condition. Such circumstances constitute valid and compelling grounds warranting invocation of the procedural mechanism of recording evidence through virtual mode”, the Bench observed.
Setting aside the order, the High Court observed that the request for recording testimony through video conferencing could not be considered unreasonable or unjustified in the circumstances of the case.
Referring to the relevant provisions of the Video Conferencing Rules, the Court noted that virtual recording of evidence could be permitted where a person was unable to reach the Court due to sickness, physical infirmity, undue delay or expense.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the Trial Court’s order and directed that the testimony of the attesting witness be recorded through video conferencing in accordance with the applicable procedure.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited only to the mode of recording evidence and would not affect the merits of the pending dispute concerning the validity of the Will.
Cause Title: Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. Rama Rani Sharma and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:084538)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Jatin Bansal, Keerti Sandhu, Prabhjot Kaur, Advocates.