V. Bharathidasan, J.

1. This civil suit has been referred by the learned Additional Master-IV to decide the issue as to the admissibility of the documents, in question. The defendants objected to marking of the same through P.W. 1 for want of certificate, as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, as the documents, in question, which were sought to be marked by the plaintiffs are Xerox copies of E-mail communications between the 6th defendant and the 7th defendant and they were procured from the electronic device. The present suit has been filed for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 5. The 6th defendant in the suit is not only a Chartered Accountant for the defendants 1 to 5 but also, has been acting as an Agent on their behalf. Prior to the filing of the suit, the 6th defendant said to have sent some Email to the daughter of the 4th defendant, who has been arrayed as 7th defendant in the suit with regard to oral agreement allegedly entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 5. Earlier, by way of A. No. 2160 of 2018, the plaintiffs sought to produce the Xerox copies of the transcription of the E-mail communications between the 6th defendant and the 7th defendant. The above said application was opposed by the defendants 1 to 5 on the ground that since the documents sought to be marked by the plaintiffs are all Xerox copies of the E-mail communications and they are not admissible in evidence for want of necessary certificate from the competent authority as contemplated under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. This court after having considered the rival submissions passed an order on 13.03.2018 allowing the application. The paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the above said order read as follows:

"6. At this stage, the permission that is sought for is only to produce the documents. The question of admissibility or authenticity or requirement of certificate or whether the plaintiffs/applicants are in position to obtain certificate as required under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act are the matters which have to be gone into at the time of the documents are actually sought to be marked.

7. Therefore, I do not think that the application could be thrown out at the threshold denying even an opportunity to produce these documents................

10. Hence, this application is allowed. The plaintiffs are permitted to produce the xerox copies of the E-mail transcript shown as document Nos. 2 to 15 and 17 to 24 in the plaint subject to proof of authenticity as well as admissibility. Whether the applicant should be required to produce or they are in position to produce the certificate under Section 65B(4) should also be gone into."

Thereafter, the suit was ordered to be placed before the learned Additional Master-IV to proceed with the recording of evidence. At the time when the documents in question were sought to be marked by the plaintiffs, again the counsel for the defendants 1 to 5 objected to marking of the documents for want of certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act as the documents are inadmissible evidence. Since the Additional Master was not competent to decide the question as to the admissibility of the documents, the counsel for the plaintiffs sought to refer the matter to this court for answer to the question as to the admissibility of the documents.

2. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 5 had also said to have accepted the stand taken by the counsel for the plaintiffs. In those circumstances, the learned Additional. Master-IV, left with no other option, retransmitted the matter to this court. When the suit was called on 07.06.2018, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought time on the ground that he wanted to get clarification on the order dated 13.03.2018 made in A. No. 2160 of 2018. Thereafter, at the instance of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the matter was listed on 14.06.2018 bef