DR.M.SUDHEER Vs. M.KAMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking to send the pen drive allegedly containing the conversation between the petitioner and the respondent for comparison of the admitted voice of the respondent.

(2.) The respondent has filed a suit for recovery of money. Inter alia the petitioner had been resisting the same by raising a plea of discharge. The trial in the suit has already been commenced. When the matter was posted for recording the evidence on the side of the petitioner/defendant, the petitioner has come up with the instant application seeking to send the pen drive for comparison. The said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order of the Court below submitted that the petition filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed by the Court below mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply the provisions of Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act, by producing the certificate along with the electronic evidence (pendrive). The learned counsel by relying on the judgment reported in 2020 7 SCC page 1 [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal submitted that the certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act need not be accompany the electronic evidence as it can be produced subsequently. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non production of certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act is only a curable defect. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the dismissal of the application on the ground that the petitioner is dragging on the matter cannot be accepted and the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate for the disposal of the suit within a time limit as fixed by this Court.