- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.4052 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUNANDA W/O LATE C.S. GUNDAPPA. SMT. G. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SRI. M. NIRMALESHA. SINCE DEAD, BY THEIR SURVIVING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 1. G.S. KUMAR S/O LATE C.S. GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. G. USHA D/O LATE C.S. GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 3. G. SHANKAR S/O LATE C.S. GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. SL.NOS.3 TO 5 R/AT. NO.166, EWS, II STAGE K.H.B. COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560079. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G. SHANKAR, [PARTY-IN-PERSON]) ® - 2 - AND: SRI. B.S. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE B. SRINIVASA RAO R/AT. NO.427, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH C MAIN HRBR LAYOUT, I BLOCK KALYANA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560043 SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S. SMT. S.K. VIMALA W/O LATE B.S. KRISHNA MURTHY SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 1 & 2 ALREADY ON RECORD. 1. SRI. ANIL B.K. S/O LATE B.S. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SRI. SUNIL B.K. S/O LATE B.S. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 1 & 2 ARE R/OF. NO.427 8TH C MAIN, HRBR, 1ST BLOCK ESWARNAGAR, KALYANANAGAR BANGALORE-560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.V. SRINIVAS & SRI. B.N. HARSHA LATHA, ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2 [ABSENT]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5.2.2021 PASSED BY THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-3), BENGALURU, ON I.A.NO.1/2021 IN O.S.NO.4067/2009 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned Order dated 05.02.2021 passed on IA No.1/2021 in O.S.No.4067/2009 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘the trial Court’ for short). 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs before the trial Court and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court. 3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred as arrayed before this Court. The brief facts of the case are that:- 4. The petitioners have instituted a suit for declaration seeking to declare that the agreement of sale dated 23.02.1984 entered into between the father of petitioners No.3 to 5 and the deceased defendant is illegal and not binding upon them. The defendant filed his written - 4 - statement and the trial Court framed issues. Plaintiff No.5 adduced evidence as PW-1 and was cross examined. During pendency of proceedings, defendant No.1 died, and his wife and two sons were brought on record as legal representatives (LRs). Subsequently, defendant No.1(a), being the wife of the deceased, also expired, leaving behind defendant Nos.1(b) and 1(c) as her sole surviving LRs. The defendant No.1(a) thereafter adduced evidence by way of affidavit in lieu of chief-examination as DW-1 and was partly cross examined. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioners is that during the cross-examination of DW-1, the counsels appearing for the defendants were constantly interfering even before the witness could answer, by simultaneously objecting to almost every question, branding them as irrelevant or repetitive. Both counsel were raising their voices in the form of objections, suggesting that the witness did not know the answer, and virtually indicating answers to the witness. Their conduct rendered it difficult for the trial Court to properly record the questions, - 5 - objections, and rulings thereon. Owing to the undue pressure exerted by the counsel, the trial Court did not permit certain questions to be put. 6. The petitioners submit that such conduct made it practically impossible to preserve the true nature of the cross examination, which stage is crucial in eliciting the truth of the matter. In these circumstances, petitioners filed an application under Section 151 CPC in I.A.No.1/2021 seeking permission to video record the further cross examination of DW-1, so that the same may prevail on record for consideration during final arguments. 7. However, the trial Court by its order dated 05.02.2021 in O.S.No.4067/2009, rejected the said application at the threshold without calling for objections from the defendants, holding that there exists no provision either under the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Civil Rules of Practice permitting video recording of witness evidence, and dismissed the application as not maintainable. - 6 - 8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 151 of the CPC and has erroneously dismissed the application on the sole ground that there is no express provision either under the CPC or under the Civil Rules of Practice for permitting video recording of cross examination. Further, absence of a specific provision does not preclude exercise of inherent powers where the ends of justice so require, and there exists no prohibition in law restraining the Court from permitting such recording. 9. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate that video recording of cross examination would only advance the cause of justice by ensuring accuracy, transparency, and fairness in the trial process. Such recording would form part of the record and assist not only the trial Court in appreciating evidence but also the Appellate Court in assessing the correctness of deposition and the conduct of parties. With the rapid advancement of science and technology, which was not - 7 - prevalent when the CPC and Civil Rules of Practice were enacted, video recording has now become a necessary tool. The judiciary itself, including both civil and criminal jurisdictions, has adopted video conferencing as a recognized mode of conducting proceedings, though not expressly contemplated under statute. 10. It is contended that the trial Court further failed to take note that several High Courts and even the Apex Court have moved towards installation of CCTV cameras and adoption of modern methods to ensure accountability inside Courtrooms. In the present case, frequent interruptions by counsel, suggestive objections, and the possibility of influencing the witness distracted from the very purpose of cross examination, which is the most crucial stage in the trial to test the veracity and credibility of testimony. The refusal to allow video recording deprives the petitioners of the only safeguard against such interruptions, misrecording, and dilution of proceedings. 11. It is further contended that the absence of recording allows material aspects such as the exact - 8 - manner of questioning, the demeanor of the witness, interruptions, contradictions, and even additions by the counsel, to go off the record, thereby prejudicing the petitioners. The grievance is aggravated by the fact that answers are sometimes inaccurately recorded by the Court, altering the context and meaning of testimony, which could mislead subsequent adjudication. In such circumstances, permitting video recording would not only ensure fidelity of evidence but would also prevent unwarranted dominance by senior counsel and avoid prolonged procedural complications at the appellate stage. 12. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the same have preferred the present writ petition. 13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 14. In support of the contentions advanced, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India and others reported in (2018) 15 - 9 - SCC 433 wherein the Apex Court emphasized the need for greater transparency and accountability in judicial proceedings by directing the installation of CCTV cameras in trial Courts and important locations within Court complexes. The Apex Court held that such recordings, though not to be made available to the public or media, would aid in maintaining the integrity of Court proceedings and serve as a useful tool for internal monitoring, training, and resolving complaints. This judgment has marked a significant step towards technological integration in the justice delivery system while balancing concerns of privacy and judicial independence. 15. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the material on record, on perusal of the impugned Order passed by the trial Court and on perusal of the Notification No.HCC 35/2021 dated 17.09.2021 and also relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradyuman Bisht supra, this Court intends to interfere and set aside the impugned Order of the trial Court. Therefore, the - 10 - Order dated 05.02.2021 passed on IA No.1/2021 in O.S.No.4067/2009 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. 16. In view of the above discussions, the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to video record the cross-examination of P.W.1 in the interest of justice and equity. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-MS