Madras High Court
Tmt. S.Sabitha vs Bannariamman Educational Trust on 20 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 1192 to 1194 of 2021
And
C.M.P. Nos. 9196, 9198 & 9206 of 2021
Tmt. S.Sabitha ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
in all C.R.Ps.
-Vs-
1. Bannariamman Educational Trust,
Trust Rep. by its Managing Trustee
S.V. Balasubramaniam
Having his office at 1212, Trichy Road
Coimbatore – 18.
2. Thiru Puhazhendi
Administrative Officer
Bannariamman Educational Trust
Residing at
3. Thiru. Mani
Civil Engineer, Bannariamman
Educational Trust
Residing at Bannariamman Educational Trust Quarters
Alathukombai Village
Sathyamangalam Taluk
... Respondents / Respondents/Defendants
in all C.R.Ps.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
PRAYER IN C.R.P.No. 1192 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the dismissal of petitioner's
application to reopen the suit to receive the documents and evidence of
PW.1.
PRAYER IN C.R.P.No. 1193 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the dismissal of petitioner's
application to mark compact disc containing the video, photos and the noise
of the rowdy elements and vocal questionings as document.
PRAYER IN C.R.P.No. 1194 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the dismissal of petitioner's
application to permit to play the video cassette marked as exhibits 15 to 17
and 20 in the court hall before both the counsels.
***
For Petitioner in
all C.R.Ps. : Mr.P.V. Balasubramanian
for Mr. S.Ranjith Kumar
For 1st Respondent
in all C.R.Ps. : Mr. T.V.Ramanujam
for Mr. M.Roshan Atiq
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the plaintiff in
O.S.No. 31 of 2018 now pending on the file of the III Additional District
and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2. The suit had been instituted by the plaintiff taking advantage of
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restitution of the property mentioned
in the schedule to the plaint.
3. The defendants had entered appearance and also had joined
issues with the averment made by filing written statements. Issues had been
framed. Parties had grazed the witness box. The evidence had also been
tested during the cross examination. Thereafter, finally after meandering
around various Interlocutory Applications, the suit is now at the stage of
advancing arguments and delivery of Judgment.
4. At that stage, the plaintiff thought it was necessary to file three
Interlocutory Applications, namely, I.A.Nos. 4, 6 and 7 of 2019. These
applications have been filed seeking permission to reopen the suit and
receive documents and evidence of PW-1, to permit to play the video
cassette marked as Exs. A-15, 16, 17 & 20 in the Court hall before both the
counsels and to produce the compact disc with respect to the video cassette
which had been marked as Exs. A15, 16, 17 & 20.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5. A counter had been filed on behalf of the defendants objecting
to the said requests and stating that the said applications have been filed at
the time of arguments and delivery of Judgment. The learned Judge also
was of the same opinion by an order dated 19.03.2020, had dismissed all the
three applications. The frustration is evident on the face of the order itself.
He had pointed out the flow of the trial and printed out that more than
sufficient opportunity had been granted to the plaintiff to adduce evidence
and had also stated the various dates in which trial had proceeded. He also
pointed out that a Commissioner had also been appointed and had filed his
report. He also pointed out that the plaintiff herself was examined as PW-1
and that her husband was examined as PW-2. The documents, namely, the
video cassette had also been marked even though they have to be
categorised as electronic evidence, without any objection and that as a
matter of fact, on behalf of the plaintiff, 24 documents had been marked.
The defendants for good measure also let in evidence and marked 29
documents. The Advocate Commissioner was also examined as CW-1.
Arguments had also been advanced by both the sides and thereafter, the
counsel for the plaintiff took time to advance reply arguments. At that
stage, these applications came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6. Learned Additional District Judge had then entered into a
discussion on the admissibility of electronic documents and had referred to,
more particularly, the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.
Anvar Vs. P.K.Basheer & Others [CDJ 2014 SC 790] and also a
subsequent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafi Mohammad
Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, [(2018) 2 SCC 801], which touched
upon admissibility of electronic evidence and imperativeness of certificate
Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
7. Let me not join issue by stating a few further Judgments
particularly the Judgment reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1, Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Others, on reference by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to admissibility of electronic evidence
and necessity to produce certificate as stipulated in Section 65B(4) of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
8. I refrain from such exercise for the reason that the evidence
available on record should be analaysed by the learned Additional District
Judge. It is only expected that evidence, which are available would be
examined and analysed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9. During the course of analysis, issues would arise with respect
to admissibility, relevancy and whether the documents or electronic
evidence had been proved in manner known to law and whether such
documents or electronic evidence are germane to the issues in the case.
These are primary considerations which would be examined and thereafter
the contents of those documents/electronic evidence would also be looked
into.
10. I would give a free hand to the learned III Additional District
Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam to have the pleasure and privilege of
examining all the documents/electronic evidence marked in the instant case
in O.S.No. 31 of 2018 keeping in mind their admissibility, relevancy and
proof and I am confident that a Judgment would be delivered in due course
touching upon all relevant issues.
11. Filing of applications, particularly, to reopen and to play the
video cassette in open Court cannot be insisted upon. Parties to a suit
cannot direct the manner how a Court should examine a particular document
or electronic evidence. If the learned Additional District Judge is of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
opinion that the video cassette marked as Exs. A-15, 16, 17 & 20 can be
viewed and should be viewed, I am confident that he would take necessary
steps to view the same and thereafter come to a just conclusion on the issues
in the suit. It is purely a discretion of the Additional District Judge.
Therefore, applications filed to call upon the Court to play video cassette in
open Court in the presence of the parties cannot be encouraged.
12. I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed and I
would rather repose faith in the learned III Additional District Judge, that a
considered Judgment would be passed on the basis of the available records
in the suit and I am confident that any Court of the first instance would
settle all disputed facts.
13. I would also by way of a passing remark request the learned III
Additional District Judge to bestow some attention and try to dispose of the
suit on or before 31.08.2021 since arguments have already been advanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
14. These Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently,
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
20.07.2021
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No.
Speaking / Non speaking
C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 1192 to 1194 of 2021
And
C.M.P. Nos. 9196, 9198 & 9206 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
