K S Ranganath vs A.L. Belur
2025 Latest Caselaw 6846 Kant

Karnataka High Court

K S Ranganath vs A.L. Belur on 30 June, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                      NC: 2025:KHC:22928
                                                    WP No. 34601 of 2018


               HC-KAR




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                        BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 34601 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
               BETWEEN:

               K.S.RANGANATH,
               S/O SRI K.V.SOORAPPA,
               AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
               R/AT NO.C-74, 36TH CROSS,
               SANATHANA KALAKSHETHRA,
               4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
               BANGALORE - 560 011.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
               (BY SRI B.N.ANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               A.L. BELUR,
               S/O SRI L.A.BELUR,
               AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by      R/AT A-60/1222, AZAD NAGAR,
CHAITHRA P     VEERA DESAI ROAD,
Location:      ANDHERI (WEST),
High Court     MUMBAI - 400 053.
of Karnataka
               AND ALSO HAVING ADDRESS
               AT NO.1400, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN,
               2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
               BANGALORE - 560 010.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
               (BY SRI H.MUJTABA, ADVOCATE)

                    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
               THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
               DATED 20.07.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL
               CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.6191/2011 ON
                                   -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:22928
                                              WP No. 34601 of 2018


HC-KAR




I.A.NO.XI UNDER ORDER             VIII    RULE    1A   OF   CPC      VIDE
ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                         ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking following relief:

"Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing

(a). The order dated 20.07.2018 passed by The Court of V Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore in O.S.No.6191/2011 on I.A.No.XI under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC (vide Annexure-F).

(b). Allow I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.6191/2011 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru

(c). Grant Such other writ or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. Heard Sri B.N.Anjan Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

the defendant in O.S.No.6191/2011 filed an application for

NC: 2025:KHC:22928

HC-KAR

production of extract of CD content containing the

conversation between the plaintiff's father and the

defendant, the defendant and one Srinivas, who is the

witness to the agreement of sale, original CD containing

the conversation between Sri Nagaraj and the defendant,

the extracts containing in the aforesaid CD and certificate

issued by the Clause 4 Evidence Forensic Lab as required

under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However,

the Trial Court dismissed the said application with an

incorrect findings.

3. It is submitted that the transaction between the

petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit and the

respondent-plaintiff, was a money transaction, which can

be easily proved from the conversation between the

parties as found in the CD. Hence, those documents are

necessary to decide the dispute between the parties.

4. It is submitted that the Trial Court incorrectly

came to the conclusion that recording of such telephonic

NC: 2025:KHC:22928

HC-KAR

conversation between the parties is tapping the telephone,

which is factually incorrect and the certificate for

downloading such information is already produced before

the Court and the same is admissible. Hence, he seeks to

allow the petition by this application.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent defends the order of the Trial Court and

submits that the Trial Court by a well-reasoned order has

held that the alleged recording of the conversation

between the father of the plaintiff and the petitioner-

defendant is a violation of the privacy right of the

respondent-plaintiff, which is impermissible and such

recording of the conversation is without any authority,

which amounts to tapping of the phone of the respondent-

plaintiff, which has been rightly recorded by the Trial Court

and dismissed the application. Hence, he seeks dismissal

of the petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:22928

HC-KAR

6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and

meticulously perused the material available on record. I

have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

advanced on both sides.

7. The respondent filed O.S.No.6191/2011 seeking

the judgment and decree against the petitioner herein for

performance of the contract in terms of the agreement of

sale dated 21.06.2007 and consequential prayer. The said

suit is defended by the petitioner-defendant by filing

written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner- defendant

filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to produce the extract of

the CD content containing the alleged conversation

between the plaintiff's father and the defendant, the

defendant's conversation with one Srinivas, who is the

witness to the sale agreement, the original CD containing

the conversation, the extract of the content of the

aforesaid CD and the certificate alleged to have been

NC: 2025:KHC:22928

HC-KAR

issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The

said application is accompanied by an affidavit of the

petitioner-defendant. On perusal of paragraphs 2 and 3 of

the affidavit, it does not indicate the reason for production

of those documents before the Court. It says there is a

conversation between the petitioner-defendant and the

respondent's-plaintiff's father and the witness to the

agreement. However, what is the conversation between

them is not forthcoming in the said affidavit filed before

the Trial Court.

8. The Trial Court considering the nature of the

documents sought to be produced, has rightly recorded

the findings that the recording of the conversation of the

respondent-plaintiff without his consent or with the

permission of the Competent Authority, it invades the right

of the privacy of the respondent-plaintiff and rejected the

same on the ground that it is inadmissible in law. Hence, I

do not find any error in the said findings. The Trial Court

has further recorded the findings that the conversation

NC: 2025:KHC:22928

HC-KAR

alleged to contain nothing, but a telephone tapping of the

respondent-plaintiff.

9. In my considered view, the said findings of the

Trial Court is strictly in consonance with the law and do

not call for any interference. The Trial Court by well-

reasoned order, has come to the conclusion that such a

document cannot be allowed to be brought on record in

the suit and rejected the application. I do not find any

error in the said findings calling for interference in the

present petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits.

Accordingly, the same is rejected.

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

CPN