The admissibility of electronic evidence requires strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Indian Evidence Act, including proper certification and pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur and Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) – XI, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.346 of 2021 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to allow the petition filed under Sections 32 and 39 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and two compact disks (C.D.) have been directed to be exhibited filed on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents.

3. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said compact disc (C.D.) has been allowed by the learned Court without following the procedure laid down under Section 65(B) of the India EVIDENCE ACT . He submits that in absence of any pleading and further without any amendment the said petition has been allowed which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that the certificate of the said disc has been signed by the plaintiff himself and a competent person has not signed the said certificate, as such the certificate itself is a created document. By way of referring to the said certificate, he submits that in the certificate, the mobile number and a laptop have already been disclosed which were the original materials and the original device has not been produced and the said thing has been produced in the form of C.D. before the learned Court. He submits that once the mobile in original is available the same was required to be produced before the learned Court. According to him, the said device has also been produced before the learned Court belatedly and a case has been made out to bring the same on the record. He submits that beyond the pleadings, the same has been allowed which is against the mandate of law. To buttress this argument, he relied in the case of Bondar Singh and Others versus Nihal Singh and Others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161 , wherein at paragraph No.7 it has been held as under :-

7. As regards the plea of sub tenancy (shikmi) argued on behalf of the defendants by their learned counsel, first we may note that this plea was never taken in the written statement the way it has been put forth now. The written statement is totally vague and lacking in material particulars on this aspect. There is nothing to support this plea except some alleged revenue entries. It is settled law that in the absence of a plea no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be looked into. Therefore, in the absence of a clear plea regarding sub tenancy (shikmi) the defendants cannot be allowed to build up a case of sub tenancy (shikmi). Had the defendants taken such a plea it would have found place as an issue in the suit. We have perused the issues framed in the suit. There is no issue on the point.

4. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that if the said pleading with regard to the same is not there in absence of any amendment the learned Court has wrongly allowed the same, however, he further relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal & Ors. versus Bhushan