- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9891 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. VIJAY KUMAR SURI (MENTIONED AS VIJAY SURI IN THE PLAINT) S/O. SH. KOSH RAJ SURI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT WILLIS TOWERS WATSON INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS, 7TH FLOOR, EMAAR CAPITAL TOWER-II, SECTOR-26, SIKANDERPUR GOSHI, M.G. ROAD, GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122002. 2. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, EMAAR CAPITAL TOWER-II, SECTOR-26, SIKANDERPUR GOSHI, M.G. ROAD, GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122002. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. MR. VIJAY KUMAR SURI. EMAIL: VIJAY.SURI@WTWCO.COM …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. MEENA V., ADVOCATE SRI. SYED SUJATH MEHDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. NAVEEN KUMAR MIDHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR. KEWAL KRISHAN MIDHA, RESIDENT OF VILLA 5, LGCL ASHLAR, KASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP KSR POLICE HEADQUARTERS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 SARJAPUR, BENGALURU – 560 099. 2. MR. ROHIT JAIN S/O. RAMESH CHANDER JAIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT WILLIS TOWERS WATSON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, AT 2ND FLOOR, TOWER B, UNITECH BUSINESS PARK, SOUTH CITY-1, GURGAON, HARYANA 122001. 3. MS. VANDANA BHATT, W/O. MR. BHATT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HAVING HER OFFICE AT WILLIS TOWERS WATSON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PLANT NO. 6, GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. L.B.S COMPOUND, PIROJSHANAGAR, MARG, VIKHROLI WEST, MUMBAI 400079, MAHARASHTRA. 4. MR. ASHOK SINGH, S/O. SHYAM BIHARI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1501-A, MAHAVIR JYOTI SECTOR 10, KHARGHAR, NAVI MUMBAI 410210. 5. WILLIS EUROPE B.V. COMPANY HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5 PROF. E.M. MEIJERSLAAN AMSTELVEEN, 1183 AV, HEREIN REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, MR. PETER RICHARD MCCONNELL. 6. M/S. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PLC, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT WILLIS TOWERS WATSON HOUSE, ELM PARK, MERRION ROAD, DUBLIN 4, IRELAND, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. JOHN F HALEY. 7. M/S. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON INDIA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 LIMITED, PRIVATE A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, TOWER B, UNITECH BUSINESS PARK, SOUTH CITY-1, GURGAON, HARYANA 122001, HEREIN REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. VIVEK NATH. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF O.S. NO. 7134/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70) AND FOR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24TH FEBRUARY 2026 (ANNEXURE-A) QUA THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION BEARING IA NO.15 IN O.S. NO. 7134/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70) AND PERMITTING THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE (EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF AND CROSS EXAMINATION) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.7134/2021 by LXIX Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, City Civil Court (CCH 70), defendant Nos.2 and 4 are before this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a commercial suit in Com.O.S.No.98/2021 before the Commercial Court at Bangalore seeking permanent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 injunction, defamation and damages against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein. The plaintiff has filed an I.A seeking to transfer the case from Commercial Court to City Civil & Sessions Court, Bangalore and the said I.A was allowed on 23.02.2022. On 13.02.2026, defendant No.1 that is respondent No.2 therein filed an interlocutory application numbered as I.A No.14 under Order XVIII Rule 4 Read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to permit respondent No.2 to lead evidence through video conferencing. On 13.02.2026, IA No.15 is filed seeking to permit petitioner No.1 to lead evidence on behalf of himself and petitioner No.2 through video conferencing. The court, by order impugned has dismissed I.A. Aggrieved thereby, defendants are before this Court. 3. The Court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner had considered judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of T.G Veer Prasad & Ors Vs Shri Prakash Gandhi & Ors, arising out of W.P.No.8283/2022which held that physical presence remains the preferred mode where complexity and confrontation of documents are involved. Further Rule 6.2 of the High Court of Karnataka Video - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 Conferencing Guidelines mandates prior consultation with the opposite party before moving such request, except in urgent circumstances. The Court observed that no such consultation has been undertaken and there is a procedural lapseson the part of the applicant. The court has considered the judgment in the case of T.G Veer Prasad referred supra at length. The court observed that the adjudicatory process, particularly in civil disputes involving contested questions of fact and documentary scrutiny, demands the opportunity to observe the demeanour, conduct, and spontaneity of the witness. Such qualitative aspects significantly assist the Court in assessing credibility. The process of cross-examination, which is regarded as the most efficacious instrument for discovering truth, assumes greater efficacy when conducted in the physical courtroom environment. The ability to confront a witness with documents, gauge hesitation or evasion, and ensure that procedural discipline may be impaired if resort to virtual mode, is permitted without compelling justification. Court further observed that in the light of the judgment of the High Court, technology is an instrumentality to advance justice, not to supplant the solemnity and rigour of trial procedure. Judicial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 discretion must remain anchored in fairness, transparency, and procedural discipline. Unless compelling and exceptional circumstances are made out, the normal rule of recording evidence in open Court ought not to be departed from. Further, the Court arrived at a conclusion that the Court must balance technological facilitation with the foundational principles of adversarial adjudication. The suit is not of a summary or routine character. It involves allegations touching upon defamation, injunctive relief, damages, and adjudication concerning alleged illegal termination. The plaintiff has already marked 157 documents during his evidence. The volume, inter- relationship, and evidentiary significance of these documents cannot be understated. Cross-examination in such a matter is not a mere formalistice exercise. It is the most potent instrument in the armory of adversarial justice. The Court observed that in so far as defendant No.1 is concerned, the grounds urged are primarily professional engagement and business inconvenience and grounds in the considered view of the court cannot be elevated to the level of compelling circumstances warranting departure from the normal rule. A litigant who chooses to contest proceedings must subject - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 himself to the discipline of trial Commercial commitments, however significant, cannot override the solemn process of adjudication and when it comes to defendant No.2, reliance is placed upon age and spinal ailments. While the Court is not unmindful of considerations of health and dignity, no categorical medical certificate prohibiting air travel has been produced. The medical reports placed on record indicate chronic degenerative changes but do not demonstrate acute incapacity or immobility. It is observed that a three-hour domestic flight to Bangalore is not impossible in the absence of a reckless prohibition and the court observed that the way of inconvenience must be distinguished from incapacity. Judicial indulgence is attracted by necessity – not preference. Accordingly,the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is a senior citizen having several ailments and he is not in a position to travel and in this regard, the medical record is placed before the court. Hence the court may consider as far as defendant No.2 is concerned and he may be permitted to lead his evidence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 through video conference. The trial court has failed to consider the settled law in this regard. The counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarvesh Mathur Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana1 and she relied on paragraph No.16 which reads as follows: “16. Above all, it must be noted that technology plays an essential role in securing access to courtrooms and as a result, access to justice for citizens across the country. Lawyers and litigants using electronic gadgets to access files and legal materials cannot be asked to turn the clock back and only refer to paper books. In the march of technology, the Courts cannot remain tech averse. Placing fetters on hybrid hearings, like mandating an age criteria, requiring prior application, and frequent denial of access to virtual participants has the direct effect of discouraging lawyers and litigants to use technology. Not only does this affect the efficiency and access to courts, but it also sends out the misguided message that access to courts can be restricted at whim to those who seek justice.” 5. She relied on another judgment of this Court in the case of Mahadev V.s The State of Karnataka2. She relied on paragraph No.12, which reads as follows: 1 W.P.(Criminal) No.351/2023 2 Criminal Petition No.200953/2023 dated 11.08.2023 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 “12. Therefore, in view of the procedures laid down in the aforesaid rules and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, recording of evidence of PW5 through video conferencing is permissible, in view of proviso to Sub-Section (1) to Section 275 of Cr.P.C., (Amendment) Act, 2008. Thus accused fails to establish that PW5 should be appeared in-person for cross-examination before the Court, thus, PW5 may be examined through video conferencing. Hence, looking into any angle the trial Court has rightly ordered for evidence of PW5 through video conferencing. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Court in detail has observed how the petitioner is not entitled for the relief and the prior consultation was also not done. In the light of the voluminous evidence/documents examining the witnesses through video conferencing is not possible and the plaintiff will not be able to prove his case and he has relied on judgment of T.G Veer Prasad referred to supra submits that the court has considered all the aspects and no interference is called. 7. Having heard the learned Counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This court has perused the order passed by the Court. The court has considered the aspect - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 of implementation of technology and the essence of the physical presence of witnesses where the court will be able to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, which is very crucial. Considering all that, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. The medical grounds as stated by the petitioner cannot be considered for the reason, none of the documents filed discloses that defendant No.2 is not in a position to travel. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order. However, considering the age of the defendant No.2, this Court is inclined to fix a time frame within which the cross-examination has to be completed. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to conclude the cross- examination of defendant No.2 within a continuous span of three days. The trial court shall ensure that cross-examination is done within three days, whenever it is convenient to the court and the dates shall be fixed in advance. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29282 WP No. 9891 of 2026 ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2