( 1 ) THE petitioner is the defendant. He filed the present revision petition against an order dismissing the petition i. A. No. 3879 of 1982 in O. S. No. 2832 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the district Munsif, Guntur. The circumstances that led to lay that petition are as follows: The respondent initiated the action for perpetual injunction disrestraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession of the plaint schedule property. According to him the petitioner executed an agreement of sale in his favour and, in pursuance thereof, he was inducted into possession but yet his possession and enjoyment thereof was being unlawfully interfered with by the petitioner. The truth and binding nature of the said agreement was denied by the petitioner and was put in issue. In proof thereof the trial is at progress and P. W, 2, the scribe of it was examined in chief.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there ensued conversation between p. W. 2 and another regarding the circumstances leading to the alleged transaction of agreement of sale and that it was recorded behind the back of P. W. 2 and that this tape was deposited in the court. It is at variance with the evidence in chief. When the examination in chief of P. W. 2 was being continued, the present application was filed under section 151 C. P. C. to permit the petitioner to tape the voice of P. W. 2 and the evidence while he was being cross-examined in the Court.

( 3 ) IT was opposed by the respondent. The lower Court dismissed the application holding (1) that there is no specific provision of law to give such a permission; (2) that it amounts to testimonial compulsion of the witness; and (3) that it would deter the witness from deposing freely and unhesitatingly.

( 4 ) SRI Narasimhachari, the learned Counsel appearing for Sri P. Ramakrishnam Raju, for the petitioner, contended that it is a fact that there is no specific provision of law for according permission to record the voice and evidence on the tape under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or under the Evidence Act. But the power can be invoked under Sec. 151 C. P. C. and Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the latter of which is analogus to taking the thumb-impressions or writing of the parties to the proceedings. There more, the order of the lower Court missing the petition on the ground that there is no specific provision of law is vitiated by material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It is further contended that what is being asked for is to record the voice of P. W. 2, which would be compared at the time of hearing with the voice found in the tape now in the custody of the Court and that it would enable the Court, at the time of final hearing, to find out whether the voice found in the tape is that of P. W. 2 and whether the conversation recorded in the tape would impeach the credibility of PW. 2 etc. If it is not recorded, in the event of transfer of the present Presiding Officer of the Court, it would cause irremediable injury to the defendant for convincing the Court that the evidence of P. W. 2 is unworthy of credit. It is not a testimonial compulsion and the witness is not exhibited to depose freely.

( 5 ) ON the other hand Sri Haranath, learned Counsel for the respondent, contends that recording the evidence and voice of the witness on the tape would amount to testimonial compulsion, which is prohibited under the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. The voice in the tape and the voice of the witness have no relevancy in the case. The conversation recorded in the tape now produced before the court is not relevant or germane for the fact in issue. At any rate, it is not evidence on record and, therefore, the witness cannot be compelled to record his voice on the tape while being crossexamined in the court. If there is any sincere intention on the part of the defendant to record the voice of the witness on the tape, the witness can be recalled at a later st