Honble KOKJE, J.–Heard Mr. S.M. Bhansali for the revision petitioner and Mr. H.S. Balot for the non-petitioner.

(2). By the impugned order the trial court had rejected a prayer to direct the defendant to allow tape-recording his voice for comparison with the other cassette in which, according to the plaintiff, the defamatory and abusive language used by the defendant against the plaintiff was recorded. Two objections were raised against the application. One was that a similar application was rejected earlier and a revision application against the order was also rejected. The second objection was that it is not permissible under law to give such a direction. The first objection appears to have been impliedly over-ruled by the trial court itself because under the earlier order it was stated that the plaintiff could repeat the submission at a later stage and it was repeated after the closer of the evidence of the parties. The second ground for rejection of the prayer was that it was in dispute as to which was the original cassette. This is clearly a material irregularity committed by the trial court when the plaintiff states that the voice of the defendant is recorded in a particular c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document