IMPORTANT POINT
A contemporaneous electronic recording of a relevant conversation is admissible as evidence.
Court’s discretion u/s 151 CPC does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either fully or partly.

JUDGMENT

R.V.Raveendran, J. —

Leave granted.

2. The respondent herein has filed a suit for specific performance (OS No.48/2007) alleging that the appellant-defendant entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 20.12.2006 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to him, for a consideration of Rs.240,000/-; that he had paid Rs.160,000/- as advance on the date of agreement; that the appellant agreed to execute a sale deed by receiving the balance of Rs.80,000/- within three months from the date of sale; that he was ready and willing to get the sale completed and issued a notice dated 16.3.2007 calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed on 20.3.2007; and that he went to the Sub-Registrar’s office on 20.3.2007 and waited, but the appellant did not turn up to execute the sale deed. On the said averments, the respondent sought specific performance of the agreement of sale or alternatively refund of the advance of Rs.160,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 20.12.2006.

3. The appellant resisted the suit. He alleged that he was in need of Rs.150,000 and approached the respondent who was a money lender, with a request to advance him the said amount as a loan; that the respondent agreed to advance the loan but insisted that the appellant should execute and register a sale agreement in his favour and also execute some blank papers and blank stamp-papers, as security for the repayment of the amount to be advanced; and that trusting the respondent, the appellant executed the said documents with the understanding that the said documents will be the security for the repayment of the loan with interest. The appellant therefore contended that the respondent - plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance.

4. The suit was filed on 26.3.2007. The written statement was filed on 12.9.2007. Thereafter issues were framed and both parties led evidence. On 11.11.2008 when the arguments were in progress, the appellant filed two applications (numbered as IA No.216/2009 and IA No.217/2009). The first application was filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’ for short) with a prayer to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further cross-examination of Plaintiff (PW1) and the attesting witness Eswaramoorthy (PW2). IA No.217/2009 was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code for recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further cross examination. The appellant wanted to cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the admissions made during some conversations, recorded on a compact disc (an electronic record). In the affidavits filed in support of the said applications, the appellant alleged that during conversations among the appellant, respondent and three others (Ponnuswamy alias Krishnamoorthy, Shiva and Saravana Kumar), the respondent-plaintiff admitted that Eswaramoorthy (PW2) had lent the amount (shown as advance in the agreement of sale) to the appellant through the respondent; and that during another conversation among the appellant, Eswaramoorthy and Shiva, the said Eswaramoorthy (PW2) also admitted that he had lent the amount (mentioned in the agreement of sale advance) through the respondent; that both conversations were recorded by a digital voice recorder; that conversation with plaintiff was recorded on 27.10.2008 between 8 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. and the conversation with Eswaramoorthy was recorded on 31.10.2008 between 7 to 9.50 p.m.; and that it was therefore necessary to reopen the evidence and further cross-examine PW1 and PW2 with reference to the said admissions (electronically recorded evidence) to demonstrate that the agreement of sale was only a security for the loan. It is stated that the Compact Disc containing the recording of the said conversations was produced along with the said applications.

5. The respondent resisted the said applications. He denied any such conversations or admissions. He alleged that the recordings were created by the appellant with the help of mimicry specialists and Ponnuswam