PRATIBHA PANDEY Vs. SHAILY TENISON CHARLSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 10/12/2019 passed by the learned Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.126/2017 whereby, an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC has been allowed.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that in a suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant (for brevity, "the defendant") for cancellation of the sale deed dtd. 11/8/2014, he filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC seeking to place on record transcript and compact disc of the conversation having taken place in between the defendant, her brother and the counsel which has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 10/12/2019.

(3.) Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendant submits that while allowing the application, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the application was belated in as much as the conversation is alleged to have taken place on 9/3/2016 whereas, the application was filed on 10/5/2019. He further submits that in absence of a certificate under Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1963 (for brevity, "the Act of 1963"), the transcript of the conversation could not have been taken on record. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dtd. 10/12/2019 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC be dismissed.