ORDER (Oral)

I.A. 6911/2023 (under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC)

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to take on record a pen drive, containing the video clip of an interview ("the subject video", hereinafter) of Mr. J.K. Jain (Chairman and Managing Director of the defendant group of Companies), stated to have been uploaded on YouTube on 4th October 2019 by a third party.

2. The application has been seriously opposed by Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, learned Counsel for the defendants, who has also filed a formal reply to the application.

3. I have heard Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, learned Counsel for the defendants at length on the present application.

4. In order to adjudicate on this application, it would be advantageous to proceed chronologically.

5. The present suit CS(Comm) 124/2021 was filed by the plaintiff before this Court on 15th March 2021 and objections were removed on 18th March 2021. It is the submission of Mr. Bakhru that the subject video was seen by his client only on 18th March 2021, as a result of which it could not be placed on record with the documents filed with the plaint.

6. According to the list of dates filed in the present application, on 19th March 2021, when the present suit came up for preliminary hearing before this Court, the plaintiff had alluded to the subject video, but the defendants objected to the reference to the video unless they were provided a copy thereof. On this aspect, learned Counsel are ad idem.

7. A replication came to be filed, by the plaintiff, to the written statement filed by the defendants on 26th April 2021, along with a list of documents. S. Nos. 4 and 5 of the list of documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the replication were as under:

8. Mr. Bakhru points out that the extracts from the YouTube interview of Mr. J.K. Jain, figuring at S. No. 4 of the aforesaid list of documents, was filed in the form of a screenshot from the YouTube and the Facebook webpages of the defendants. Apropos serial no. 5 of the list of documents, which was stated to be the video interview given by Mr. Jain alongwith the transcript thereof, Mr. Bakhru points out that, as, at that time, the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was at its peak, and physical filing of documents was not being permitted, the plaintiff could only place on record a YouTube link as well as an MP4 link separately created by the plaintiff. Both these links, according to the plaintiff, resolved to the aforesaid interview of Mr. J. K. Jain. The relevant page, reflecting the manner in which this was filed, as filed with the list of documents on 26th April 2021, may be reproduced thus:

[IMG]

9. At this point, one may deal with two submissions which were advanced by Ms. Majumder, apropos the aforenoted links provided by the plaintiff.

10. Ms Majumder's first submission is that the manner in which the video interview was filed with the list of documents could not be treated as a proper filing of electronic evidence, which was required to be in accordance with Rule 24 in Chapter XI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter the "Original Side Rules"), which reads thus:

"24. Reception of electronic evidence - A party seeking to tender any electronic record shall do so in a CD/DVD/Medium, encrypted with a hash value, t