Madras High Court
Mr. Shreyans Babel vs Coimabtore North Round Table 2 on 9 September, 2022
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No. 4126 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No. 19356 of 2017
Mr. Shreyans Babel,
S/o. Late Shri Heeralal Babel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Coimabtore North Round Table 20,
rep. by its Hon'ble Secretary
2. Round Table India,
rep. by its National Secretary ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order as made in
I.A.No.504 of 2017 in O.S.No.501 of 2012 dated 13.07.2017 on the file
of I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan
for R1
R2 - No appearance
ORDER
The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in
O.S.No.501 of 2012, on the file of I Addl. Sub-Judge, Coimabtore to
declare the termination made by the 1st defendant dated 18.0.2012 as null
and void.
2. The defendants also contested the suit by filing written
statement and issues were framed and the case was posted for trial. At
that time, the plaintiff filed the application in I.A.No.541 of 2017 under
Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Sec.151 of C.P.C. praying to condone the
delay in production of petition mentioned document CD/DVD containing
the conversation between the parties and the said application was
strongly objected by the defendants stating that to receive an electronic
record by way of electronic evidence, it should be annexed with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
certificate as required under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
Considering submissions of both sides, the trial judge dismissed the
application stating the reason that no such certificate was accompanied
with the said application.
3. Challenging the said findings, this Revision Petition was filed
by the plaintiff contending that the trial court erred in coming to the
conclusion that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of
Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Only before the pre-trial, he has filed
that application and seeking permission to adduce document and that he
has every right to produce the document at the time of trial. Hence, he
prayed to challenge the findings and for that, he relied on the authority
reported in 2001 (3) SCC in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs.
State of Gujarat and another, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
in para 14 as follows:-
“14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better
substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence
taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and
mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or
record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such
objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the
court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is
sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence
excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in
adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the
objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court
has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other
objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)
4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for respondents would
submit that to receive an electronic document, the party, who filed the
application to submit an electronic record, it should accompany with the
certificate as provided under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act, for which
he relied on the authority reported in in Civil Appeal Nos.20825-20826
of 2017 in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held in paras 7 to 10 as follows :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
“7. What is laid down in Section 65B as a precondition for the
admission of an electronic record, resembles what is provided in the
second part of Section 136. For example, if a fact is sought to be
proved through the contents of an electronic record (or information
contained in an electronic record), the Judge is first required to see
if it is relevant, if the first part of Section 136 is taken to be
applicable.
8. But Section 65B makes the admissibility of the information
contained in the electronic record subject to certain conditions,
including certification. The certification is for the purpose of
proving that the information which constitutes the computer output
was produced by a computer which was used regularly to store or
process information and that the information so derived was
regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said
activities.
9. In other words, if we go by the requirements of Section 136,
the computer output becomes admissible if the fact sought to be
proved is relevant. But such a fact is admissible only upon proof of
some other fact namely, that it was extracted from a computer used
regularly etc. In simple terms, what is contained in the computer
output can be equated to the first mentioned fact and the
requirement of a certification can be equated to the last mentioned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
fact, referred to in the second part of Section 136 read with
Illustration (b) thereunder.
10. But Section 65B(1) starts with a nonobstante clause
excluding the application of the other provisions and it makes the
certification, a precondition for 90 admissibility. While doing so, it
does not talk about relevancy. In a way, Sections 65A and 65B, if
read together, mixup both proof and admissibility, but not talk about
relevancy. Section 65A refers to the procedure prescribed in Section
65B, for the purpose of proving the contents of electronic records,
but Section 65B speaks entirely about the preconditions for
admissibility. As a result, Section 65B places admissibility as the
first or the outermost check post, capable of turning away even at
the border, any electronic evidence, without any enquiry, if the
conditions stipulated therein are not fulfilled.”
5. Considering the ratio laid down in the said case, for
admissibility of information contained in the electronic record subject to
certain conditions, including certification as required under Sec.65-B of
Indian Evidence Act for admissibility of such evidence. But, on seeing
the facts of the present case, the petitioner wanted to adduce CD/DVD,
which contains conversation between the parties, it is no doubt, if it is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
electronic record, it needs certificate as required under Sec.65-B of
Evidence Act. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he is
ready to submit the said certificate along with his document. With that
observation, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by set aside the
findings given by the trial court. However, already the suit is at the stage
of commencement of trial, the petitioner is directed to produce the said
electronic record along with certificate as required under Sec.65-B of
Indian Evidence Act before the trial court. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
rpp
To
I Addl. Sub-Judge,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.R.P.No.4126 of 2017
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
