JUDGMENT : This Court thinks it fit to dispose of this revision finally at the admission stage today itself without issuing notice to the respondent. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the revisionists/plaintiffs against the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Original Suit No. 10 of 2010, "Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Others vs. International Ishavasyam Mission for Social Welfare of India Trust and Another", whereby the application filed by the revisionists/plaintiffs for recording the evidence of PW3 through Video Conferencing, has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists/plaintiffs would submit that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application of the revisionists/plaintiffs has not properly appreciated the provisions of the High Court of Uttarakhand Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 (hereinafter to be referred as the V.C. Rules). He would further submit that PW3 Dr. Alok Chopra is a medical practitioner and runs a multispecialty hospital in the name of Aashlok Hospital at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and he used to examine number of patients on daily basis, therefore, it is extremely difficult for him to physically appear before the court below to record his evidence; that, he is an important and necessary witness so to prove the case of the revisionists/plaintiffs. He would further submit that the revisionists/plaintiffs are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court for examination of PW3 through video conferencing. 4. Perused the impugned order and other material available on file. 5. The trial court has observed in the impugned order that this case is of civil nature unlike criminal cases where the Medical Officer, who had conducted the postmortem or done the forensic examination is needed to be examined; that, PW3 Dr. Alok Chopra whose evidence is being sought to be recorded through video conference runs a private multi-specialty hospital in Delhi and as per the V.C. Rules every private hospital or the private video conferencing room is not authorized for this purpose; that, there are certain designated institutions for recording evidence through video conferencing in the court premises where the coordinator is appointed as per the guidelines of the High Court. It is further observed that Aashalok Hospital is not an authorized hospital under the V.C. Rules. 6. It is further observed that Aashalok Hospital is not an authorized hospital under the V.C. Rules. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists/plaintiffs and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any merit in the observations made by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the application for the reason that the V.C. Rules are still in existence. Furthermore, as the revisionists/plaintiffs are financially capable, necessary arrangements can be made by them for recording evidence of PW3 conforming to the V.C. Rules for appointing the coordinator, if at all it is mandatory. At the same time, the trial court cannot be oblivious of the fact that in cases of recording the evidence through video conferencing a mechanism should be devised for the ends of justice. However, the mechanism so devised should be in consonance with the existing V.C. Rules and not in derogation to the same. In this regard, request can be made to the District Court, Delhi to explore the possibility to facilitate the evidence of PW3 through Video Conferencing. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in larger interest of justice. Accordingly, present civil revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.04.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Original Suit No. 10 of 2010 is hereby set aside. Application paper no.352C is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in the light of observations made hereinabove.