SURESH KUMAR Vs. VIKRAM JESUDASEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil suit has been referred by the learned Additional Master-IV to decide the issue as to the admissibility of the documents, in question. The defendants objected to marking of the same through P.W.1 for want of certificate as required under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act, as the documents, in question, which were sought to be marked by the plaintiffs are Xerox copies of E-mail communications between the 6th defendant and the 7th defendant and they were procured from the electronic device.

(2.) The present suit has been filed for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 5. The 6th defendant in the suit is not only a Chartered Accountant for the defendants 1 to 5 but also, has been acting as an Agent on their behalf. Prior to the filing of the suit, the 6th defendant said to have sent some Email to the daughter of the 4th defendant, who has been arrayed as 7th defendant in the suit with regard to oral agreement allegedly entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 5. Earlier, by way of A.No.2160 of 2018, the plaintiffs sought to produce the Xerox copies of the transcription of the E-mail communications between the 6th defendant and the 7th defendant. The above said application was opposed by the defendants 1 to 5 on the ground that since the documents sought to be marked by the plaintiffs are all Xerox copies of the E-mail communications and they are not admissible in evidence for want of necessary certificate from the competent authority as contemplated under Sec. 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. This court after having considered the rival submissions passed an order on 13.03.2018 allowing the application. The paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the above said order read as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 5 had also said to have accepted the stand taken by the counsel for the plaintiffs. In those circumstances, the learned Additional Master-IV, left with no other option, retransmitted the matter to this court. When the suit was called on 07.06.2018, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought time on the ground that he wanted to get clarification on the order dated 102018 made in A.No.2160 of 2018. Thereafter, at the instance of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the matter was listed on 14.06.2018 before the Honourable Judge who passed the order in A.No.2160 of 2018. Accordingly, the Honourable Judge by order dated 16.06.2018 clarified the earlier order that the question of admissibility was left open to be decided based on the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-