MAHENDRA GOYAL Vs. VIPIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs.5.00 lac along with interest in which the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC read with Sec. 65A, 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 151 CPC. Thus, trial court vide order dtd. 22/2/2018 had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in plaint Para No.8, petitioner clearly stated that respondent in telephonic talk with the brother of the petitioner Monu admitted the fact that he had taken Rs.5.00 lac from the petitioner. So, the petitioner wanted to submit the recording of telephonic talk but trial court vide order dtd. 22/2/2018 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. So, order of the learned trial court be set aside and telephonic recording submitted by the petitioner be taken on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shafhi Mohammad Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh; Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.2302/2017. Leaned counsel for the respondent submits that trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner because brother of the petitioner is not a party in the present suit and no affidavit was filed by the petitioner of his brother and no certificate obtained from Authorities of Telephone Department filed by them. So, present petition be devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order.