The court upheld the trial court's decision to admit electronic evidence despite delays and clarified that a Section 65B certificate can be submitted later.

ORDER :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.126/2017 whereby, an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC has been allowed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that in a suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant (for brevity, "the defendant") for cancellation of the sale deed dated 11.08.2014, he filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC seeking to place on record transcript and compact disc of the conversation having taken place in between the defendant, her brother and the counsel which has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 10.12.2019.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendant submits that while allowing the application, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the application was belated in as much as the conversation is alleged to have taken place on 09.03.2016 whereas, the application was filed on 10.05.2019. He further submits that in absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1963 (for brevity, "the Act of 1963"), the transcript of the conversation could not have been taken on record. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 10.12.2019 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC be dismissed.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. While allowing the application, the learned trial Court has held that although, the application was belated; but, in view of the fact that the transcript submitted by the plaintiff was relevant for just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter and for delay, the defendant could suitably be compensated, it deserved to be allowed; however, with a cost of Rs. 1000/- payable to the defendant.

6. Since, it has not been a case of the defendant that the requisite transcript submitted by the plaintiff is not relevant for decision of the controversy involved in the matter, this Court finds no illegality in this reason assigned by the learned trial Court.

7. With regard to the requirement of submission of the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act of 1963, it is suffice to say that it is now a well reasoned legal principle that such certificate is not required to be submitted along with the electronic evidence; but, can be submitted later on. Therefore, this submission also does not merit acceptance.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason under its limited supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court in exercise of its judicious discretion.

9. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.