1. Rule. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 original defendant No.1, who is main contesting party so far as the present Special Civil Application is concerned. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anand below application Exh. 167 in Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2008, by which the learned trial Court has allowed the said application submitted by the respondent No.1 herein original defendant No.1 to read the documents as produced vide Exh. 54/1 and to appreciate the same for the purpose of hearing and adjudication of application Exh.5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the said documents are in the form of Compact Disk (C.D.).

3. Petitioners original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs .) have instituted Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 2008 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anand for declaration and permanent injunction declaring that respondent No.1 herein original defendant No.1 shall not declare himself to be Acharya of various Swaminarayan Temples at Vadtal, Junagadh, Gadhda etc. In the said suit original plaintiffs submitted application Exh. 5 for interim injunction and it appears that learned trial Court has granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in terms of para 28(A) and 28(B) of the application, vide ex parte interim injunction dated 15.5.2008 and the said application is still pending for final disposal. That the respondent No.1 herein original defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No.1) submitted the reply to the said application along with certain documents. Defendant No.1 also produced the documents vide Exh. 54/1 which was in the Electronic Form i.e. Compact Disc. Therefore, the defendant No.1 submitted application Exh. 167 requesting the learned trial Court to read, produce and accordingly appreciate the same for the purpose of hearing and adjudication of the application Exh.5. It was contended on behalf of the defendant No.1 that the said Electronic record/ documents in Electronic Form i.e. Video Tape depicting happening / fact or event/ incident having occurred in the year 1984 i.e. the nomination of defendant No.1 as the future Acharya being caused in the event having occurred in the year 1984. It was submitted that in the course of argument on behalf of the defendant and the learned advocate requested the learned trial Court to read the said Electronic documents through medium of computer, learned advocate for the plaintiffs has opposed said essential process of only reading the documents in Electronic Form and, therefore, the said application was given to read, peruse and appreciate by using computer. It was submitted that the said documents in the form of C.D./ which was in the Electronic Form is required to be read and appreciate for the purpose of hearing and adjudication of the application Exh.5. Therefore, it was requested to read, peruse and accordingly appreciate the said documents which was in Electronic From for the purpose of hearing and adjudication of the application Exh.5 and for the aforesaid purpose and appreciate to use the computer for the purpose of reading the said documents.

4. The aforesaid application was opposed by the plaintiffs by submitting the application Exh. 168 by submitting that the documents in question are not admissible in evidence. It was also submitted that considering the various provisions under the Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules 2000; the Information Technology (Certifying Authorities) Regulation 2001; the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adju