CR-4854-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 126 Balram Sansoa Vinod Kumar Drall CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Sandeep Khunger AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner/ revision against impugned order dated learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram has modified the earlier order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P present physically from United Kingdom for remaining cross without any valid justification. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that Vinod Kumar Drall filed suit (Annexure P consequential relief of permanent injunction against Stephen Kumar Sansoa K.C.Chibber and Surender Yadav. During the pendency of the suit petitioner along with others filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them trial Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of decision : Balram Sansoa V/S Vinod Kumar Drall and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the petitione **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL) Petitioner/defendant No.4 Balram Sansoa filed present civil revision against impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram has modified the earlier order dated (Annexure P-4) and directed the petitioner/defendant No.4 to com present physically from United Kingdom for remaining cross without any valid justification. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that Vinod Kumar Drall (Annexure P-1) for specific performance and declaration with ntial relief of permanent injunction against Stephen Kumar Sansoa K.C.Chibber and Surender Yadav. During the pendency of the suit petitioner along with others filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as defendants which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4854-2026 Date of decision : 03.09.2026 ...... Petitioner ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Advocate for the petitioner. defendant No.4 Balram Sansoa filed present civil 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram has modified the earlier order dated 4) and directed the petitioner/defendant No.4 to come present physically from United Kingdom for remaining cross-examination Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that Vinod Kumar Drall for specific performance and declaration with ntial relief of permanent injunction against Stephen Kumar Sansoa, K.C.Chibber and Surender Yadav. During the pendency of the suit, present petitioner along with others filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with as defendants which was allowed by the (Annexure P-2). The written statement ...... Petitioner Respondents defendant No.4 Balram Sansoa filed present civil 6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram has modified the earlier order dated e examination Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that Vinod Kumar Drall for specific performance and declaration with , present petitioner along with others filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with as defendants which was allowed by the 2). The written statement SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4854-2026 filed by them is Annexure P filed application seeking permission of the Court for reco through video conferencing. The said application was also allowed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Annexure P-4). His statement was being recorded as DW examination was al DW-5 is Annexure P conferencing he was confronted with the document by showing signatures alone, to which he as a witness insisted to show the entire could give reply to the said question. At this point of time, Court observed that presence of petitioner/defendant No.4 as DW further cross-examination. The corresponding zimni order dated 30.04.2026 is Annexure P-6. Learned counsel representing petitioner has referred to the judgment of Bombay High Court in 11.07.2008 case titled by applying the principles of Act, 1872 that it would be unfair for the witness to deny him benefit of seeing document and asking him to identify his signature on document by covering rest of the portion of the document. It is further pointed out that there was no requirement for the present p physically for further cross conferencing for Courts and according to that his cross required to be conducted. On this point, he has relied upon Ru -2- filed by them is Annexure P-3. Thereafter, present applicant/defendant No.4 filed application seeking permission of the Court for reco through video conferencing. The said application was also allowed by learned (Junior Division), Gurugram vide order dated 19.03.2026 4). His statement was being recorded as DW examination was also going on. The cross-examination of present petitioner as 5 is Annexure P-5. During the cross conferencing he was confronted with the document by showing signatures alone, to which he as a witness insisted to show the entire could give reply to the said question. At this point of time, Court observed that presence of petitioner/defendant No.4 as DW-5 was required in the Court for examination. The corresponding zimni order dated 30.04.2026 is 6. Learned counsel representing petitioner has referred to the judgment of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.4281 of 2008 11.07.2008 case titled ‘H.N. Rai Vs. Ajay Mohan’ by applying the principles of Section 159, 160 and 161 of the Indian Evidence that it would be unfair for the witness to deny him benefit of seeing document and asking him to identify his signature on document by covering rest of the portion of the document. It is further pointed out that there was no requirement for the present petitioner as DW physically for further cross-examination as there are elaborate Rules for video conferencing for Courts and according to that his cross required to be conducted. On this point, he has relied upon Ru - 3. Thereafter, present applicant/defendant No.4 filed application seeking permission of the Court for recording of his statement through video conferencing. The said application was also allowed by learned , Gurugram vide order dated 19.03.2026 4). His statement was being recorded as DW-5 and the cross- examination of present petitioner as 5. During the cross-examination through video conferencing he was confronted with the document by showing signatures alone, to which he as a witness insisted to show the entire document so that he could give reply to the said question. At this point of time, Court observed that 5 was required in the Court for examination. The corresponding zimni order dated 30.04.2026 is 6. Learned counsel representing petitioner has referred to the Writ Petition No.4281 of 2008 decided on ‘H.N. Rai Vs. Ajay Mohan’ where it was observed that Section 159, 160 and 161 of the Indian Evidence that it would be unfair for the witness to deny him benefit of seeing document and asking him to identify his signature on document by covering rest of the portion of the document. It is further pointed out that there was no etitioner as DW-5 to appear in the Court examination as there are elaborate Rules for video conferencing for Courts and according to that his cross-examination was required to be conducted. On this point, he has relied upon Rule 9 of Model 3. Thereafter, present applicant/defendant No.4 ng of his statement through video conferencing. The said application was also allowed by learned , Gurugram vide order dated 19.03.2026 - examination of present petitioner as examination through video conferencing he was confronted with the document by showing signatures document so that he could give reply to the said question. At this point of time, Court observed that 5 was required in the Court for examination. The corresponding zimni order dated 30.04.2026 is 6. Learned counsel representing petitioner has referred to the decided on where it was observed that Section 159, 160 and 161 of the Indian Evidence that it would be unfair for the witness to deny him benefit of seeing document and asking him to identify his signature on document by covering rest of the portion of the document. It is further pointed out that there was no 5 to appear in the Court examination as there are elaborate Rules for video examination was Model SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4854-2026 Rules in Volume runs as under:- “9. Preparatory arrangements (1)The coordinator at the designated place/remote point shall ensure that; (a) the required persons scheduled to appear in proceeding are ready at the remote point/designated place for video conferencing well before the scheduled time; (b) no unauthorized recording device is used; (c) no unauthorized person enters the remote point or designated place when the v (d) the person being examined is not prompted, tutored, coaxed, induced or coerced in any manner by any person and that the person being examined does not refer to any document, script or device without the permission of th course of examination. (2) Where the witness to be examined through video conferencing or other audiovisual electronic communication requires or if it is otherwise expedient to do so, the Court shall give sufficient notice in appropriate cases may provide the copies of all or any part of the relevant documents in electronic form to the coordinator of the concerned remote point. -3- Rules in Volume-V, Chapter-1-H of the High Court Rules and Orders, 9. Preparatory arrangements (1)The coordinator at the designated place/remote point shall ensure that; (a) the required persons scheduled to appear in proceeding are ready at the remote point/designated place for video conferencing well before the scheduled time; (b) no unauthorized recording device is used; (c) no unauthorized person enters the remote point or designated place when the video conference is in progress; (d) the person being examined is not prompted, tutored, coaxed, induced or coerced in any manner by any person and that the person being examined does not refer to any document, script or device without the permission of th course of examination. (2) Where the witness to be examined through video conferencing or other audiovisual electronic communication requires or if it is otherwise expedient to do so, the Court shall give sufficient notice in advance, setting out the schedule of video conferencing and in appropriate cases may provide the copies of all or any part of the relevant documents in electronic form to the coordinator of the concerned remote point. - H of the High Court Rules and Orders, which (1)The coordinator at the designated place/remote point shall (a) the required persons scheduled to appear in a particular proceeding are ready at the remote point/designated place for video conferencing well before the scheduled time; (b) no unauthorized recording device is used; (c) no unauthorized person enters the remote point or designated ideo conference is in progress; (d) the person being examined is not prompted, tutored, coaxed, induced or coerced in any manner by any person and that the person being examined does not refer to any document, script or device without the permission of the Court concerned during the (2) Where the witness to be examined through video conferencing or other audiovisual electronic communication requires or if it is otherwise expedient to do so, the Court shall give sufficient notice advance, setting out the schedule of video conferencing and in appropriate cases may provide the copies of all or any part of the relevant documents in electronic form to the coordinator of the which (1)The coordinator at the designated place/remote point shall a particular proceeding are ready at the remote point/designated place for (c) no unauthorized person enters the remote point or designated (d) the person being examined is not prompted, tutored, coaxed, induced or coerced in any manner by any person and that the person being examined does not refer to any document, script or e Court concerned during the (2) Where the witness to be examined through video conferencing or other audiovisual electronic communication requires or if it is otherwise expedient to do so, the Court shall give sufficient notice advance, setting out the schedule of video conferencing and in appropriate cases may provide the copies of all or any part of the relevant documents in electronic form to the coordinator of the SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4854-2026 (3) Before the scheduled video confer ensure that the coordinator at the designated place or remote point receives in electronic form, copies of all or any part of the documents which may be required for recording of evidence, or for reference of the witness. However, c documents in electronic form to be used by the required person only with the permission of the Court. (4) Whenever required, the Court shall order the coordinator at the Remote Point or at the Court Point to provide (a) a tra conversant with the official language of the court; (b) an expert in sign languages in case the person to be examined is impaired in speech and/or hearing; (c) an interpreter or a special educator, as the case a person to be examined is differently abled, either temporarily or permanently; (d) a person for reading of documents in case the person to be examined is visually challenged. It is submitted that keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P by accepting present civil revision and he may be allowed to appear in the Court through video conferencing for DW-5. -4- (3) Before the scheduled video confer ensure that the coordinator at the designated place or remote point receives in electronic form, copies of all or any part of the documents which may be required for recording of evidence, or for reference of the witness. However, c documents in electronic form to be used by the required person only with the permission of the Court. (4) Whenever required, the Court shall order the coordinator at the Remote Point or at the Court Point to provide (a) a translator in case the person to be examined is not conversant with the official language of the court; (b) an expert in sign languages in case the person to be examined is impaired in speech and/or hearing; (c) an interpreter or a special educator, as the case a person to be examined is differently abled, either temporarily or permanently; (d) a person for reading of documents in case the person to be examined is visually challenged.” It is submitted that keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P by accepting present civil revision and he may be allowed to appear in the Court through video conferencing for his remaining cross - (3) Before the scheduled video conferencing, the Court shall ensure that the coordinator at the designated place or remote point receives in electronic form, copies of all or any part of the documents which may be required for recording of evidence, or for reference of the witness. However, coordinator shall allow such documents in electronic form to be used by the required person only with the permission of the Court. (4) Whenever required, the Court shall order the coordinator at the Remote Point or at the Court Point to provide- nslator in case the person to be examined is not conversant with the official language of the court; (b) an expert in sign languages in case the person to be examined is impaired in speech and/or hearing; (c) an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be, in case a person to be examined is differently abled, either (d) a person for reading of documents in case the person to be It is submitted that keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) may kindly be set aside by accepting present civil revision and he may be allowed to appear in the his remaining cross-examination as encing, the Court shall ensure that the coordinator at the designated place or remote point receives in electronic form, copies of all or any part of the documents which may be required for recording of evidence, or for oordinator shall allow such documents in electronic form to be used by the required person (4) Whenever required, the Court shall order the coordinator at nslator in case the person to be examined is not (b) an expert in sign languages in case the person to be examined case may be, in case a person to be examined is differently abled, either (d) a person for reading of documents in case the person to be It is submitted that keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, 6) may kindly be set aside by accepting present civil revision and he may be allowed to appear in the examination as SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4854-2026 3. The petitioner has annexed all the relevant documents along with present civil revision for proper adjudication of the present case. No purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent and the s dispensed with. 4. I have considered the arguments as well as the documents on record. The contents of plaint (Annexure P Kumar Drall filed suit for specific performance consequential relief of permanent injunction dated 17.01.2011 executed by defendant No.2 being general power of attorney holder dated 08.06.2001 Kumar Sansoa is the brother of present defendant No.4 o Section 151 CPC which was allowed by learned Civil Judge Gurugram vide order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P 6 including the present petitioner filed written statement (Annexure P which he denied to have authorize sell their share of property to the plaintiff. Trial in this case is going on. The doc that the case was pending for defendant’s evidence and the statement of present petitioner Balram Sansoa was being recorded as DW5. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram allowed his application to appear through vid conferencing vide order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P examination conducted on him as DW5 is Annexure P examination was already completed. Further cross -5- The petitioner has annexed all the relevant documents along with present civil revision for proper adjudication of the present case. No purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent and the s dispensed with. I have considered the arguments as well as the documents on record. The contents of plaint (Annexure P- Kumar Drall filed suit for specific performance ial relief of permanent injunction on the basis of agreement to sell dated 17.01.2011 executed by defendant No.2 being general power of attorney holder dated 08.06.2001 of defendant No.1. Said defendant No.1 Stephen Kumar Sansoa is the brother of present petitioner who was later defendant No.4 on filing his application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC which was allowed by learned Civil Judge Gurugram vide order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P 6 including the present petitioner filed written statement (Annexure P which he denied to have authorized either defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 to sell their share of property to the plaintiff. Trial in this case is going on. The doc that the case was pending for defendant’s evidence and the statement of present petitioner Balram Sansoa was being recorded as DW5. The learned Civil Judge n), Gurugram allowed his application to appear through vid conferencing vide order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P examination conducted on him as DW5 is Annexure P examination was already completed. Further cross - The petitioner has annexed all the relevant documents along with present civil revision for proper adjudication of the present case. No purpose would be served by issuing notice to the respondent and the same is accordingly I have considered the arguments as well as the documents on -1) indicate that plaintiff Vinod Kumar Drall filed suit for specific performance and declaration with on the basis of agreement to sell dated 17.01.2011 executed by defendant No.2 being general power of attorney . Said defendant No.1 Stephen petitioner who was later-on arrayed as n filing his application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC which was allowed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram vide order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-2). The defendant Nos.4 to 6 including the present petitioner filed written statement (Annexure P-3) vide either defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 to Trial in this case is going on. The documents on record indicate that the case was pending for defendant’s evidence and the statement of present petitioner Balram Sansoa was being recorded as DW5. The learned Civil Judge n), Gurugram allowed his application to appear through video conferencing vide order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-4). The cross- examination conducted on him as DW5 is Annexure P-5. Substantial cross- examination was already completed. Further cross-examination was deferred The petitioner has annexed all the relevant documents along with present civil revision for proper adjudication of the present case. No purpose accordingly I have considered the arguments as well as the documents on 1) indicate that plaintiff Vinod and declaration with on the basis of agreement to sell dated 17.01.2011 executed by defendant No.2 being general power of attorney . Said defendant No.1 Stephen on arrayed as n filing his application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with , os.4 to 3) vide either defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 to uments on record indicate that the case was pending for defendant’s evidence and the statement of present petitioner Balram Sansoa was being recorded as DW5. The learned Civil Judge eo - - examination was deferred SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4854-2026 as the witness was confronted with a d rest of the document was covered entire document for giving appropriate reply. At this stage, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.04.2026 directed the witness person for further cross 5. In the light of aforesaid factual position, facts and passing of impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P trial Court. It is the prerogative of witness to give r him. The conduct, demeanor of the witness can be noted down if the witness refused to give reply without seeing the document. would have given his observation on this point, otherwise the cross examination and to confront him with any document through video conferencing elaborate rules have been framed as referred above. Accordingly, the witness could have been cross document. Since the witness refused to give repl and for this purpose alone, the learned trial Court was not justified by insisting him to appear in person for further cross is residing in United Kingdom and video conferencing vide order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P any valid reason to modify the said order by calling upon him to appear in person for further cross P-6). Therefore, present civil revision preferred by petitioner/defendant No.4 is accepted and impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P -6- as the witness was confronted with a document by showing his signatures and rest of the document was covered, to which the witness insisted to show the entire document for giving appropriate reply. At this stage, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.04.2026 directed the witness person for further cross-examination. In the light of aforesaid factual position, facts and passing of impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P t is the prerogative of witness to give r him. The conduct, demeanor of the witness can be noted down if the witness refused to give reply without seeing the document. would have given his observation on this point, otherwise the cross n and to confront him with any document through video conferencing elaborate rules have been framed as referred above. Accordingly, the witness could have been cross-examined by confronting him with the said document. Since the witness refused to give repl and for this purpose alone, the learned trial Court was not justified by insisting him to appear in person for further cross-examination. Admittedly, the witness is residing in United Kingdom and he was already allowed to appear through video conferencing vide order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P any valid reason to modify the said order by calling upon him to appear in person for further cross-examination vide order dated 30.04.20 Therefore, present civil revision preferred by petitioner/defendant No.4 is accepted and impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P - ocument by showing his signatures and to which the witness insisted to show the entire document for giving appropriate reply. At this stage, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.04.2026 directed the witness to appear in In the light of aforesaid factual position, I have considered the facts and passing of impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) by the t is the prerogative of witness to give reply to the question put to him. The conduct, demeanor of the witness can be noted down if the witness refused to give reply without seeing the document. The learned trial Court would have given his observation on this point, otherwise the cross- n and to confront him with any document through video conferencing elaborate rules have been framed as referred above. Accordingly, examined by confronting him with the said document. Since the witness refused to give reply without seeing the document and for this purpose alone, the learned trial Court was not justified by insisting examination. Admittedly, the witness he was already allowed to appear through video conferencing vide order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-4). I do not find any valid reason to modify the said order by calling upon him to appear in examination vide order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure Therefore, present civil revision preferred by petitioner/defendant No.4 is accepted and impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) is set ocument by showing his signatures and to which the witness insisted to show the entire document for giving appropriate reply. At this stage, the learned trial to appear in I have considered the by the eply to the question put to him. The conduct, demeanor of the witness can be noted down if the witness The learned trial Court - n and to confront him with any document through video conferencing elaborate rules have been framed as referred above. Accordingly, examined by confronting him with the said y without seeing the document and for this purpose alone, the learned trial Court was not justified by insisting examination. Admittedly, the witness he was already allowed to appear through 4). I do not find any valid reason to modify the said order by calling upon him to appear in (Annexure Therefore, present civil revision preferred by petitioner/defendant 6) is set SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4854-2026 aside with the direction to learned trial Court to continue with the cross examination of witness as DW rules framed thereon as referred above. Since the civil suit is pertaining to the year 2016, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), accordingly as well. 03.09.2026. Sunil Devi -7- aside with the direction to learned trial Court to continue with the cross f witness as DW-5 through video conferencing as per the specific rules framed thereon as referred above. Since the civil suit is pertaining to the year 2016, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Pending miscellaneous application(s), accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No - aside with the direction to learned trial Court to continue with the cross- 5 through video conferencing as per the specific rules framed thereon as referred above. Since the civil suit is pertaining to the year 2016, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of (AMARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE - 5 through video conferencing as per the specific rules framed thereon as referred above. Since the civil suit is pertaining to the if any, stand disposed of SUNIL DEVI 2026.09.07 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document