IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admissibility and proof of electronic records, such as mobile locations, are governed by Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act, and the Civil Court does not gather evidence for the parties.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 47985/2023 (for exemption)

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

CM(M) 1508/2023

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by ADJ-02, NorthDistrict, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS DJ No. 59358/2016, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (`Evidence Act') read with Section 30 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC').

1.1. The Petitioner is defendant no.1; Respondent no.1 is plaintiff and Respondent no.2 is defendant no.2 in the civil suit.

1.2. The Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.1 and the wife of the Respondent No.2.

1.3. The civil suit has been filed by the Respondent No.1 i.e., the plaintiff, seeking a decree of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction against both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 with respect to the property bearing house no. 61, Hari Park, Mukundpur, Delhi - 110042 (`suit property').

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the said suit was listed by the Trial Court for final arguments on 14.02.2023 and it was at this stage in March, 2023 that he was engaged by the Petitioner to represent her.

2.1. He states that after perusing the record of the suit, he was of the opinion that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are acting in collusion with each other in the suit proceedings.

2.2. He states that more specifically upon perusal of the details of the counsel for the Respondent No.1 herein, he realised that there is collusion in this matter, inasmuch as the said counsel for the Respondent No.1 also filed the divorce petition on behalf of the Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner.

2.3. He states that Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 have colluded with each other, since the Respondent No.1 has filed the present civil suit for possession against both the Petitioner herein and Respondent No.2 on incorrect averments.

2.4. He states that it was in these facts and circumstances that he advised the Petitioner to file the application dated 23.04.2023 under Section 139 of the Evidence Act read with Section 30 and 151 of CPC, seeking directions to DeputyCommissioner of Police, North West, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, to preserve and submit before the Trial Court, the mobile locations of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for the period between 24.11.2022 to 23.04.2023 from 02:00 AM to 05:00 AM.

2.5. He states that since by way of this application, the Petitioner was merely seeking summoning of the said record, no cross-examination of the police officer was required under Section 139 of the Evidence Act and therefore, no prejudice or delay would have been caused in the trial as the said documents have to be simply taken on record.

2.6. He states that the Trial Court has sufficient jurisdiction under Section 30 of CPC to even otherwise call for the information which the Petitioner herein is seeking by the application filed in April, 2023.

2.7. He states that in view of the assertion of the Petitioner that there is a collusion between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, the safeguards contemplated in the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vinay Verma Vs. Kanika Pasricha and Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11530, are squarely attracted to this case.

2.8. He further states that the matter is listed today only i.e., on 18.09.2023, before the Trial Court for final arguments and he therefore, seeks a stay of the trial.

3. This Court has considered the submissions of the counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.

4. The suit was filed in November, 2015. The plaintiff's evidence (i.e., Respondent No.1)in this matter commenced on 28.11.2016. The defendant no.1's (i.e., the Petitioner) evidence stood concluded on 05.07.2022. The Petitioner herein therefore, has sufficient time since 2015 to collate and produce before the