1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 26.07.2018 in IA No.1390 of 2017 in OS No.57 of 2015 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. The said Interlocutory Application is filed under Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to play a conversation recorded in a cell phone and copied on to the pen drive to enable the defendant/petitioner in IA to prove his contention in the suit.

2. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,34,000/- based on a promissory note. The defendant in the suit took a plea of material alteration in the promissory note. According to him, the sum of Rs.3 lakhs was altered as Rs.13 lakhs in promissory note. According to the averments in the affidavit, just prior to the cross-examination of PW.1/plaintiff, a meeting was held on 12.08.2017 between the plaintiff, defendant and responsible mediators who wanted to settle the dispute. In that meeting, according to the affidavit, the plaintiff admitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs only and not Rs.13 lakhs. This discussion was purportedly recorded by the petitioner/defendant in his cell phone and copied on to a pen drive, which were filed into the Court. During the course of examination, the defendant’s counsel wanted to confront the witness with this conversation and he wanted to play the recorded conversation. This was objected by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Therefore, the application IA No.1390 of 2017 was filed u/s.45-A of the amended Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to play the conversation recorded in the cell phone and copied into the pen drive so as to enable the defendant to prove the contentions raised by him. This was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a counter.

3. After hearing both the counsel, the lower Court allowed IA No.1390 of 2017 and permitted the defendant to play conversation in the open Court. This order is now questioned in the CRP by the plaintiff in the suit who is the respondent in the said IA.

4. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid confusion, they are referred to as plaintiff and defendant only.

5. This Court has heard Sri M. Rammohan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri G. Ramagopal, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

6. The first and foremost objection raised by the plaintiff/revision petitioner is that Section 45-A of the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, because it deals with opinion of an expert etc. It is a fact that Section 45-A is not applicable to the facts of IA No.1390 of 2017. Nevertheless the mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law is not very relevant provided that the prayer made is appropriate. The prayer in the said IA is to play the conversation recorded in the cell phone and copied on to the pen drive in the Court. The purpose is to confront the witness and to prove the case of the defendant. Therefore, the mere mention of Section 45-A of Indian Evidence Act in the IA is not a factor to reject the prayer.

7. The second objection raised by Sri M. Rammohan, learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the said fact about the recording of the conversation is not pleaded and that therefore, no evidence can be introduced unless it is supported by pleading.

8. This Court notices that this meeting is supposed to have taken place just in August 2018, just before the cross-examination of the plaintiff. After the pleadings were filed, PW.1’s evidence was being recorded when this meeting purportedly took place. This is an event that occurred subsequent to the pleading and as such pleading about the existence of the conversation and its recording cannot arise in the circumstances of the case. It is a subsequent event that took place after the pleadings were filed. This is the exact argument advanced by Sri G. Ramagopal, learned counsel for the defendant in this matt