ORDER :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A. Basith, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.83 of 2023 in O.S.No.260 of 2017, wherein a petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1 A (3) of CPC, to receive certain emails and WhatsApp chats, has been dismissed.

3. The background facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.260 of 2017 for recovery of the invested amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, for recovery of profit amount of Rs.4,40,000/- for the period from 11.11.2016 to 01.03.2017 and for interest at 24% per annum on the suit amount from the date of suit till the date of realization. Said suit was filed on account of investment of certain amounts by the respondent in the business of the petitioner under a partnership agreement. There were disputes about the business and therefore, the respondent sought recovery of his invested amount as well as profits with interest. In said suit, when the matter was at the stage of defendant's evidence, the petitioner herein filed I.A. under revision to seek leave of the Court for receiving (1) emails exchanged between the petitioner and respondent, (2) emails exchanged between tax consultant, petitioner, respondent and respondent’s son showing copy of draft of business agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, (3) WhatsApp chat exchanged between the petitioner and respondent and (4) WhatsApp chat exchanged between the petitioner and respondent's son. For the purpose of receiving said documents, the petitioner furnished a self certificate under Section 65B (2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘Evidence Act’).

4. The said petition was opposed by the respondent on the ground that there is no pleading with respect to WhatsApp messages or exchanges of emails in the written statement and that the exchange of emails and WhatsApp messages are beyond the period of 2016 and except the messages dated 29.11.2016 and 27.12.2016, no other emails or WhatsApp messages were exchanged and that they are self-created. The WhatsApp messages pertaining to the year 2017 are self-created by the petitioner. Further, it is stated that the emails and WhatsApp messages are filed before the Court without authenticity from the competent authority and as self- certified certification under Section 65B and therefore, not permissible as per proviso of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

5. Upon considering the arguments and version of both the respective parties, the learned trial Court held that the electronic evidence sought to be received without producing the original instrument through which the mails originated and without producing Section 65B (4) certificate from the concerned authority and therefore, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

6. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the trial Court erred in holding that without producing Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act certificate from concerned officiating authority, evidence cannot be received. Sub-section 4 of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act purports to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of relevant device or the management of relevant activities and therefore, the certificate under Section 65 B (4) of the Evidence Act can be of either a person occupying official position or manager of relevant activities, as observed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1. The petitioner is the manager and owner of the device through which email and WhatsApp conversations are recorded. Therefore, certificate furnished by the petitioner under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act would be sufficient for receiving t