The main legal point established in the judgment is that inherent powers under section 151 CPC cannot be used to nullify specific remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the admissibility of electronic records under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Ramendra Jain, J.

By this common judgment, both the above noted Civil Revision bearing Nos. 650 and 658 of 2017 are being decided together as the controversy involved therein are identical in nature. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.650 of 2017.

2. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure P-1), whereby the application under section 151 PC filed by him for recalling RW-1 Dr. Paviter Kaur for further cross-examination, allowing him to place on record a true and correct replica of CD at Ex.P-1/12, which was not found in playable condition on account of some scratches developed therein and to check other CDs, Exhibits P-1/8, P-1/10 and Ex.PA placed on the record of the court, so as to enable him to produce correct copies of the original CDS, was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala.

3. A cursory glance of averments in the application dated 01.03.2016 filed by the petitioner under section 151, CPC shows that the petitioner tendered his evidence in the trial court on 30.9.2011 by way of affidavit dated 13.04.2011. A copy of complete evidence containing 109 pages and three CDs were handed over to the respondent in the court, the same day. On 11.9.2015 when cross-examination of respondent Dr.Paviter Kaur was in progress, she deposed in her testimony that she had heard voices contained in the copies of CDs provided to her by the petitioner in the court on 30.9.2011. She has also read the written version of the CDs provided to her. She further deposed in her testimony that written versions contained in Exhibits P-1/9, P-1/11 and P-1/13 was in accordance with the CDs. However, during her cross-examination, the respondent intentionally denied that the CDs provided to her on 30.9.2011 contained her voice showing her conversation with the petitioner. She also denied that the third CD provided to her on 30.9.2011 contained the voice of her father and her mother, which necessitated the petitioner to move application on 5.11.2015 for comparison of voice of respondent Dr. Paviter Kaur, her father Shri Mehar Singh and her mother Smt. Ranjit Kaur with the voice contained in Exhibits P-1/8, P-1/10 and P-1/12. The respondent-wife filed her reply to the above said application on 20.11.2015. In para 3 of the reply, the respondent, on merit, pleaded that CDs at Exhibits P-1/8, P-1/10 and P-1/12 were never played in the court. During cross-examination of RW-2 Mehar Singh on 05.11.2015, the CD at Exhibit P-1/12 available in the court file was played in the court, but it did not open on account of development of some scratches thereon. An exact copy of the CD at Exhibit P-1/12 is available with the petitioner on another CD and as such, he may be allowed to place on the record a true copy of the CD at Exhibit P-1/12. A set of the copy of CD was also also supplied to the respondent in the court on 30.9.2011, when the petitioner tendered his evidence by way of affidavit dated 13.4.2011. Therefore, the respondent may be directed to produce in the court the same copy of the CD at Exhibit P-1/12. Some other CDs, Exhibits P-1/8, P-1/10 and PA are also available on the record of the case. The petitioner prays that their status are also required to be checked so that it could be transpired that they are in playable condition. In case, any of the CDs is not in working condition, then he may be allowed to submit a true copy of the same to the court, so that further proceedings may not be effected.

4. The respondent filed a reply to the application dated 19.1.2016 denying all averments in the application filed by the petitioner averring that there can be no true copy of the CD Ex.P1/12, inasmuch as original copy thereof should have been produced in the court. CD itself is a secondary evidence and the copy thereof cannot be taken on the record. She vehemently denied that the copy of the alleged CD supplied to her is the correct copy of the CD exhibited at E