OM PARKASH Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the petition has been directed against order dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure P7) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Derrabassi whereby application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for directing Malkeet Ram (DW4) to provide his voice sample for the purpose of comparing the same with conversation recorded by petitioner No. 4, purportedly taken place between petitioner No. 4 and Malikat Ram (DW4) has been rejected.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners would argue that Malkeet Ram (DW4) was examined by the respondents/defendants to counter case of the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking declaration qua sale deed executed and registered on 30.05.2008 in favour of the respondents in respect of land measuring 02 bigha 09 biswa 18-3/4 biswasi being 1/16 share out of total land measuring 39 bigha 19 biswa, detailed in head note of the plaint. It is further submitted that there was conversation between petitioner No. 4 and Malkeet Ram (DW4) wherein he admitted that the aforesaid sale deed was without sale consideration and the same was recorded in 'compact disc1 (CD) mark PA. During cross examination of DW4, the recorded conversation was played in the Court and put to the witness but he denied the same. It is further argued that in order to arrive at a logical conclusion with regard to correctness of conversation recorded in CD, the instant application was filed for issuance of direction to Malkeet Ram (DW4) to give his voice sample but the same has wrongly been declined by the trial Court. It is argued that Malkeet Ram in his cross examination had stated that he was ready to give voice sample for the purpose of comparison. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Jagarlamudi Tirupathaiah vs Kolasani Subba Rao, 1983 (1) ALT 438, wherein the Court has allowed recording of cross examination of PW2 in the Court for the purpose of comparison with the earlier recorded conversation, for testing the veracity or impeach credibility of the witness.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the paper book particularly the order impugned and the judgment cited at Bar.