1 2025:CGHC:23799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 473 of 2025 1. Rakesh Kant Sharma S/o Late Ramkumar Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Rakesh Cement, Narendra Bhavan, House No. 471/72 Opposite Baal Samaj Library, Bramhanpara, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ............ Defendant No. 1 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Damyanti Tiwari Wd/o Late Rahul Tiwari Aged About 51 Years R/o House No. 508 D, Millennium Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ............... Plaintiff No. 1 2. Shashwat Tiwari S/o Late Rahul Tiwari Aged About 26 Years Through Power Of Attorney Holder, Mother, Smt. Damyanti Tiwari Wd/o Late Rahul Tiwari, R/o House No. 508 D, Millennium Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ....................... Plaintiff No. 2 3. Kumari Shubrita Tiwari D/o Late Rahul Tiwari Aged About 21 Years Through Power Of Attorney Holder, Mother, Smt. Damyanti Tiwari Wd/o Late Rahul Tiwari, R/o House No. 508 D, Millennium Chowk, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ................. Plaintiff No. 3 4. Renuka Sharma D/o Late Ramkumar Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o Rakesh Cement, Narendra Bhavan, House No. 471/72 Opposite Baal Samaj Library, Bramhanpara, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .................... Defendant No. 2 5. Gaurav Dubey S/o Shri Vyas Narayan Dubey Aged About 45 Years R/o Maitri Nagar, Satya Prem Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............. Defendant No. 4(A) 6. Garima Dubey D/o Shri Vyas Narayan Dubey Aged About 41 Years R/o Maitri Nagar, Satya Prem Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .............. Defendant No. 4(B) MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.07.16 12:08:37 +0530 2 7. Smt. Rita Diwan W/o Shri Santoshdhar Diwan Aged About 58 Years R/o Near Grace Beauty Parlour, Samta Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8. Smt. Rama Devi Sharma (Since Died) Wd/o Late Ramkumar R/o Nil 9. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ................... Defendant No. 6 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 13.06.2025 1. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed the present writ petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned 9th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 31A/2017 by which the application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC & application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC have been rejected. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration, partition, possession and injunction with regard to the suit property described in the suit. The defendants have taken a specific plea in the written statement that the partition has already taken place, therefore, suit for subsequent partition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Thereafter, after examination of the plaintiff evidence, the defendants moved an application under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC 3 as well as an application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC for taking documents on record. The contention raised in the application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC is that the witness of the defendant Narendra Tiwari is now aged about 72 years and he is suffering from illness, therefore, it is difficult for him to appear before the Court and to record his evidence. So far as application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is concerned, the defendants have mainly contending that the plaintiff No. 1’s husband late Rahul Tiwari wrote a letter to his father wherein it has been mentioned that there is some description about the alleged partition. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. This Court has directed the defendant No. 1 to place the written letter by the plaintiff No. 1’s husband on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are bad in law as the trial Court has taken a hyper technical view in dismissing the application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC and not considered the fact that the witness Narendra Tiwari is aged person and suffering from illness, despite this fact brought on record it has mechanically rejected the same. So far as application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is concerned, it has been stated that without determining the relevancy it has rejected the same on the count that since the plaintiff’s evidence has already been closed and no opportunity to rebut the same will be given to the plaintiff and also recorded its finding that it is dubious 4 in nature, therefore, it has rejected the same and would pray for allowing the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. Considering the facts and evidence on record, I am of the view that so far as application under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC is concerned, the trial Court has committed illegality in not considering the application in the spirit for which this provision has been provided in the Civil Procedure Code by examining the witness through appointing the Commissioner. In fact, it is an aid for early disposal of the cases, therefore, order so far Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC deserves to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside and modified to the extent that instead of examining the witness through Commissioner, it is directed that the witness will be given an opportunity to appear through video conferencing facilities for leading his evidence and the video conferencing facility will be conducted according to the Rules framed in this regard by the High Court for the High Court and District Judiciary of the State of Chhattisgarh known as use of Electric Communication and Audio- Video Electronic Means Rules (Nyaya Shruti), 2025 (in short “Rules of 2025”). The Chapter 4 of the said Rules deals with the procedure for video conferencing, Rule 13 deals with the examination of persons and witnesses through video conferencing and other modes of audio-visual electronic communication, Rule 14 deals with exhibiting or showing documents to witness or accused at a remote point, Rule 15 deals with ensuring seamless 5 video conferencing and Rule 19 deals with the general procedure. Learned trial Court is directed to comply these Rules and allow the examination of witness through video conferencing facility available with them. 7. Thus, the order dated 11.03.2025 to the extent of rejection of application under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC is modified by allowing the petitioner to examine his witness through video conferencing facility. So far as Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is concerned, the trial Court has rightly raised doubt over the correctness of the document which cannot be said to be prima-facie illegal, as such, order to the extent of rejection of application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is affirmed and the application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 of CPC is modified by granting liberty to the petitioner to examine the witness through video conferencing facility as per the Rules of 2025. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish