Court takes 11 months to record evidence via video-conferencing

Ishrat S Banwait

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 6

While efforts to make the District Courts hi-tech here are already half-hearted, lack of technical knowhow further denies speedy trial using technology. It took 11 months for a local court to record evidence in a civil case via video-conferencing, which was done on Monday. Tracing the IP address of a court in Bhopal was the hurdle.

The statement of 80-year-old Harminder Kaur Brar, who is currently in Bhopal, was to be recorded. The single woman is battling multiple ailments and is thus not fit to travel to Chandigarh to record her statement. For the past four years, she is fighting a property-related case filed by her daughter against her, who is demanding a one-third share in her mother’s property.

In September last year, advocate Malkit Singh Jandiala filed an application in the court asking for video-conferencing for recording Brar’s statement. He stated that his client was then 79 and suffered from various ailments. Thus, travelling to Chandigarh probably more than once was not possible for her.

However, on September 19, 2017, the court declined the same stating that no medical record was attached with the plea. Jandiala contested the said order in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which allowed the same after just two days. The HC order said the daughter who filed the case herself mentioned her mother’s poor health in her statement; thus there was no need of a medical record.

However, for 10 months following the order, the court could not conduct the video-conferencing as it failed to connect with the Bhopal courts. However, last month, the court had a ‘eureka’ moment and decided to write to the court in Bhopal.

On July 9 this year, the local court wrote to the Bhopal court asking for its IP address and contact number to make the video-conferencing possible. It was in the same letter that the court mentioned that the date of hearing was fixed for August 6. On Monday, finally, Brar’s cross-examination started via video-conferencing.

The case

In 2014, Jasminder Seth, then 51, filed a recovery suit worth Rs 1.15 core against her mother Harminder Kaur Brar and three others. Seth stated that her late father had bought a house in Sector 34. He died in 2007 and left his wife and two daughters as the only legal heirs. She stated that as her mother was mentally ill, Seth’s other sister conspired and sold the house. The house was sold for Rs 3.45 crore in August 2014. Seth thus demanded a one-third share in the said amount plus interest as it was her father’s investment.