Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Order Refusing Video Conferencing for 78-Year-Old Attesting Witness in Will Dispute

Justice Virinder Aggarwal held that the Civil Judge, Chandigarh ignored the High Court’s own Video Conferencing Rules when dismissing a request to record an elderly witness’s testimony virtually in a succession matter.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set aside an order of the Civil Judge, Chandigarh, that refused to allow an attesting witness to a registered Will to depose through video conferencing. Justice Virinder Aggarwal, sitting singly at Chandigarh, allowed the civil revision petition filed by Ashwani Kumar Sharma under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, finding that the trial court had dismissed the application in a “wholly mechanical and perfunctory manner” without engaging with the Video Conferencing Rules already framed by the High Court. The witness in question, Dr. Plom Khurana, is approximately 78 years old, resides at Gurugram, and had recently lost her husband after attending to his prolonged illness. The decision, dated 27 May 2026, directs the trial court to proceed with recording her testimony through video conferencing in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure.

The Succession Dispute and the Witness Application

The underlying litigation before the Civil Judge, Chandigarh, concerns the succession and inheritance of the estate of the late Smt. Prabha Kanta Sharma. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, the petitioner, has propounded a registered Will dated 21 December 1979, which was registered on 25 January 1980. Under that Will, the property in dispute is stated to have been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner and respondents No. 5 to 8 in equal shares.

Respondents No. 1 to 4 contest the Will. Their case before the trial court is that the registered Will dated 28 January 1980 of the late Smt. Prabha Kanta Sharma is forged and fabricated. Dr. Plom Khurana is an attesting witness to the Will and, according to the petitioner, her testimony is essential for proving its due execution and attestation.

On 2 December 2025, the petitioner moved an application before the trial court seeking permission to record Dr. Khurana’s testimony through video conferencing. The application stated that she is an elderly lady of approximately 78 years, residing at Gurugram, and was at the time attending to her ailing husband who was suffering from Stage-IV cancer along with severe cardiac ailments and diabetes. Given those circumstances, it was submitted that she was not in a position to travel to Chandigarh to depose in person.

Respondents No. 1 to 4 contested the application. The Civil Judge dismissed it on 20 March 2026.

How the Trial Court Reasoned — and Where It Went Wrong

The trial court’s order, reproduced in the High Court’s judgment, acknowledged that Dr. Khurana’s presence was essential for identifying signatures and other material circumstances surrounding the Will. It accepted that her age and travel time could be compensated by way of costs. However, it drew a sharp distinction: the application did not assert that the witness could not travel, only that she was elderly. The trial court held that “the mere age without any ailment of the witness is not a ground to exempt her from appearing in the court” and dismissed the application accordingly.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that this reasoning was mechanical and that the trial court had passed the order in complete disregard of the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court itself. Justice Aggarwal agreed on both counts.

The High Court noted that the trial court had failed to adequately consider those Rules and the technological infrastructure specifically established for facilitating judicial proceedings through video conferencing. The very object of implementing such mechanisms, the Court observed, 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 Video Conferencing Rules and Their Scope

Justice Aggarwal examined the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3.1 of those Rules provides that video conferencing facilities may be utilised at all stages of judicial proceedings, conferring a wide procedural ambit for the use of such technology.

Rule 8 specifically governs the recording of testimony of witnesses through video conferencing. Its provisions address identity verification before examination, administration of oath by the Coordinator at the Court Point, transmission of documents to the witness in advance so that she may be familiarised with them before examination, exhibition of original documents at the Court Point, recording of the witness’s demeanour, ruling on objections during deposition, and obtaining the witness’s signature on the transcript after examination concludes.

Rule 8.15 is particularly relevant. It provides that where a required person is not capable of reaching the Court Point or the Remote Point due to sickness or physical infirmity, or where securing the person’s presence would involve undue delay or expense, the Court may authorise the conduct of video conferencing from the place at which such person is located, including through a portable video conferencing system.

Rule 8.4 addresses the specific concern the trial court had raised about document identification: documents proposed to be shown to the witness are to be transmitted to her in advance so that she acquires familiarity with them before examination. Justice Aggarwal held that this provision squarely answered the trial court’s apprehension. Copies of the documents could be transmitted by the trial court to the witness in advance, enabling them to be put to her during examination through video conferencing in accordance with law. No legal or procedural impediment arose on that account.

The Circumstances of the Witness

By the time the matter came before the High Court, the factual position had changed from what was placed before the trial court. The High Court noted that Dr. Khurana, already of advanced age, had recently suffered the loss of her husband after attending to his prolonged medical condition. Justice Aggarwal held that such circumstances constituted valid and compelling grounds warranting invocation of the procedural mechanism of recording evidence through virtual mode.

The trial court’s finding that the application did not assert an inability to travel was therefore overtaken by subsequent events, and in any case the High Court found that the trial court had not engaged with the Rules at all when dismissing the application.

Scope of the High Court’s Observations

Justice Aggarwal was careful to confine the order to the narrow procedural question before him. The judgment records that the observations are not intended as any expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. The findings are confined solely to the issue of whether the witness’s testimony could be recorded through video conferencing. Nothing in the order is to prejudice, affect, or influence the rights, claims, or contentions of any of the parties in the pending proceedings, which are to be decided independently and strictly in accordance with law.

Order

The revision petition was allowed. The impugned order of the Civil Judge, Chandigarh, dated 20 March 2026, was set aside. The trial court was directed to proceed with recording the testimony of Dr. Plom Khurana through video conferencing in accordance with the applicable Video Conferencing Rules and procedure. All pending miscellaneous applications arising out of or connected with the revision proceedings were disposed of accordingly.