(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 151 of CPC, to clarify the directions contained in paragraph 16 of the order dated 19.09.2025 passed in CRP No.4964 of 2024 also consequently permit the petitioner to be cross examined through Video Conferencing from Chennai.)

1. I had disposed of the revision petition viz., CRP. No.4964 of 2024, setting aside the order in I.A. No.14 of 2024, dated 28.10.2024, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry, and further directed the examination of the first respondent in a particular manner, refusing to grant any special indulgence in favour of the first respondent in the revision petition, on the ground of his age and ill health. In fact, the order was passed on the fond hope that the evidence of the first respondent would be recorded both in chief and cross, preferably on a single day or atleast with a buffer of one additional day. The request of the first respondent for being examined virtually was declined.

2. Subsequently, the CMP No.24671 of 2026, has been filed to clarify the directions issued by me in the order dated 19.09.2025 and to permit the petitioner to be cross examined through Video Conferencing from Chennai.

3. I have heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.R.Ramasubramaniam Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/first respondent in the revision petition and Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel would submit that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner/first respondent in the revision petition physically appeared before the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry on 10.03.2026 and also filed his proof affidavit. However, he could not thereafter appear in person and the learned Trial Judge also permitted documents to be marked through Video conferencing, despite the objections of the first respondent, revision petitioner herein. Admittedly, on 23.03.2026, the chief examination on the side of the petitioner/first respondent was completed and documents were marked through video conferencing. The revision petitioner, thereafter filed a memo on 15.04.2026 before the Trial Court stating that he intended to mention the matter before this Court for necessary clarifications regarding appearance of the petitioner through video conferencing. Admittedly, no such clarification was sought for by the revision petitioner/first respondent herein.

5. According to the petitioner/first respondent in the revision, his health deteriorated further, especially after March 2026 and he has become completely bed bound and undergoing neurological treatment. He would further contend that his pulmonary condition has also worsened and he is also suffering Interstitial Lung desease, which has resulted in oxygen desaturation and which requires intermittent home oxygen therapy. In support of his health status, he has also filed medical records. It is therefore the contention of Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner cannot physically appear before the Puducherry Court, travelling all the way from Chennai, risking his health and life.

6. He would further state that the petitioner, in fact, filed an Application in I.A. No.18 of 2026, before the Trial Court seeking permission to record his evidence through Video Conferencing under VC Rules framed by this Court, in 2026. However, in view of my order passed in the above CRP, while disposing of the CRP on 19.09.2025, the Trial Court dismissed the said Application. As against the dismissal of I.A. No.18 of 2026, the petitioner moved this Court in CRP. No.5493 of 2026 and this Court dismissed the revision petition, directing the petitioner to seek for clarification in the present CRP. Thus the present Application came to be filed. Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel, would therefore request me to permit cross examination of the petitioner, in view of the newly framed Madras High Court Video Conferencing in Courts Rules, 2026, which would sufficiently safeguard the interest of all parties, including the first respondent.

7. Per contra, Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the medical certificates that have been produced on the side of the petitioner are parrot-like repetition, without any changes, and that too, from the very same Doctor attached to Apollo Hospitals. She would further state that the petitioner is not bed bound and he is going about his normal routines in his house and therefore, there would be no difficulty whatsoever for the petitioner to appear physically before the Trial Court at Puducherry to present himself for cross examination. She would further state that full cooperation would be ensured on the side of the first respondent/revision petitioner to complete the cross examination, without any delay whatsoever.

8. In addition to the above, the learned Senior Counsel would state that the documents that are required to be put to the witness are voluminous in nature and it would be highly inconvenient for the documents to be scanned and shown to the witness. She would further state that if the witness is going to be answering questions from his residence, then there is lot of room for prompting and assistance being rendered from third parties inside the very same room, which would be beyond the control or supervision of the learned Judge. She would therefore state that the clarification petition may be dismissed and reiterating that if the petitioner appears physically, the first respondent would ensure that the cross examination is completed without any unreasonable delay.

9. After carefully considering the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and also on going through the medical records and keeping in mind that the same Doctor has given more than one medical certificate at various points of time, which in fact, set out the health condition of the petitioner, I appointed an Advocate Commissioner Ms.Dipthi Munoth, to take the assistance of Dr.Kishanth Kumar.S., M.B.B.S., MD., to examine the petitioner at his residence and to file a report as to whether he will be in a position to travel to Puducherry and present himself for cross examination. In compliance with the said order, the learned Advocate Commissioner along with Dr.Kishanth Kumar, went over to the residence of the petitioner on 25.09.2026, at 5.30 pm and in the presence of Advocates on either side, the identity of the petitioner was identified through his daughter, Mrs.Wahitha Shahjahan, besides learned counsel for the petitioner as well. The report of the Commissioner read with Dr.Kishanth's report indicate that the petitioner was lying on the bed, but was communicating and responding to the questions put to him by Dr.Kishanth.

10. Dr.Kishanth Kumar, has also filed his medical examination report, dated 25.09.2026, wherein, he has stated that after perusing the medical history and records of the petitioner and assessing the present condition of the petitioner, the petitioner is in good mental and cognitive status, but in view of his advanced age and severe physical restrictions, consequent to his medical condition, it is medically inadvisable and unsafe for the petitioner to travel. Even on 01.10.2026, when further argument were advanced by the learned Senior Counsel on either side, based on the Commissioner's report, Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel reiterated that the petitioner is not confined to bed permanently and admittedly, he has not suffered any bed sores, which by itself, clearly indicates that the petitioner is moving about and not confined to bed permanently. She would further state that the petitioner is able to go to the toilet on his own, without any assistance and therefore, he could be directed to appear atleast before the Arbitration Centre, which has all adequate video conferencing facilities, as mandated under VC Rules, 2026. She would therefore pray for the order dated 19.09.2025, being suitably clarified.

11. Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel, would state that the petitioner is not in a position to move outside his residence and it would be highly risky to undertake travel of even short distance. He would also state that the petitioner is willing to bear all the incidental expenses, that may be incurred for the purposes of facilitating recording of his cross examination through VC at his residence, or as this Court may direct.

12. After going through the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner and the medical examination report of Dr.Kishanth Kumar.S., M.B.B.S., MD., I personally communicated with Dr.Kishanth Kumar, about which I had also informed both the learned Senior Counsel at the time of reserving orders, stating that I would again take the opinion of Dr.Kishanth Kumar, before passing final orders in the Application. Dr.Kishanth Kumar, reiterated his observations in the medical examination report dated 25.09.2026 and informed me that it is not advisable for the petitioner to travel outside his residence, considering his age and medical conditions and that there is every likelihood that he may even collapse.

13. In the light of the above, I allow the clarification petition in the following manner:-

                     (i) The order dated 19.09.2025, in CRP. No.4964 of 2024, stands recalled. Admittedly, the petitioner has already been examined in chief and what remains is only his cross examination. As rightly contended by Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, though it is permissible to record the evidence of the petitioner at his residence in terms of VC Rules, 2026, there are several practical issues and difficulties that would arise, in the present case, especially considering the voluminous documents that may have to be put to the petitioner. Also, as rightly pointed out by Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, adequate video conferencing infrastructure as required under VC Rules 2026, may also not be practically possible to be provided at the residence of the petitioner. Hence, I am inclined to appoint Mr.R.Sathishkumar, Advocate (Cell: 94440 47537), having address at No.315/152, 5th Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Parrys, Chennai - 600 001, as the Advocate Commissioner, to record the cross examination of the petitioner at his residence.

                     (ii) The Trial Court shall transmit the entire bundle, with pleadings and all documents, marked and unmarked to the Registry of this Court, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the bundle, the Registry shall hand over the same to the learned Advocate Commissioner across getting an acknowledgment, to enable him to proceed with recording of cross examination of the petitioner, after ascertaining the convenience of the learned counsel on either side and also the convenience of the petitioner, who is suffering from several health issues. The learned Advocate Commissioner, shall fix a date for cross examination of the petitioner at his residence. Cross examination shall duly commence on the said date and agreed time, without any adjournment being sought for and preferably the cross examination shall be concluded on the agreed date. However, if it is not possible to complete the cross examination on the same day, then, the learned Advocate Commissioner, at his discretion, again after ascertaining the convenience of both the learned counsel and the first petitioner shall fix a suitable date, preferably the next day or a very short date, so that on the said date, the cross examination shall be continued and completed.

                     (iii) The learned Advocate Commissioner shall take the assistance of a stenographer of his choice, to record the cross examination of the petitioner. The transcript of the evidence so recorded, shall be signed by the petitioner and the original transcript along with the entire bundle that is being handed over to the Advocate Commissioner, shall be returned by the learned Advocate Commissioner to the Registry of this Court on the next working date and the said report, transcript of the cross examination along with original documents shall be sent back to the Trial Court, by the Registry of this Court, without any further delay, to enable further trial of the suit to be proceeded with.

                     (iv) The learned Advocate Commissioner shall be paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) towards his remuneration by the Applicant. In order to take care of the travel and incidental expenses of the learned counsel for the first respondent, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for the first date of cross examination. In the event of cross examination spilling over to a second day, the first respondent shall pay an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- to meet the travel/accommodation expenses of the learned counsel for the first respondent. Since, the cross examination is being directed to be recorded at the residence of the petitioner in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supervised and recorded by the learned Advocate Commissioner, I am confident that the cross examination will be completed on a single day, or atleast on the second date, without any necessity for the cross examination spilling over to a third day. If, in the event of any difficulties with regard to the completion of cross examination, then the Advocate Commissioner is at liberty to make a mention before me, seeking suitable clarifications.

14. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed with the above terms. No costs.