Alok Sharma, J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'plaintiff') and perused the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 allowing the objections of the respondent-defendant (hereinafter 'defendant') to the admissibility of certain electronic records in the course of the trial in the suit laid by the plaintiff questioning her termination from service by the defendant.

2. Mr. R.K. Daga appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the trial court untenably has taken a narrow and restricted view of the Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1872') in holding that the certificate requisite under Section 65 -B (4) of the Act of 1872 must necessarily accompany the electronic record/documents when filed and if the certificate is subsequently filed it will be of no avail. Mr.R.K. Daga relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan [2016 (2) RLW 945 (Raj.)] to submit that the certificate requisite under Section 65-B (4) for admissibility of electronic record as evidence in a trial could be subsequently filed. Emphasis was laid on Para 15 in Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan which reads as under:-

15. Alt