A self-certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is admissible for electronic evidence if issued by the person in lawful control of the device and it complies with statutory requirements regarding the identification and production of the record.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision by setting aside the docket order dated 06/10/2023 in HMOP 66/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Court at Amalapuram in the interest of the justice

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the docket order of the court below dated 06/10/2023 in HMOP 66/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Amalapuram, pending disposal of the CRP

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the docket order dated 06.10.2023 passed in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapauram.

2. The petitioner is the petitioner whereas the respondent is the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.66 of 2017 filed for grant of divorce under sections 13(1) (ia)(ia)(iii) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the petitions filed by the petitioner vide I.A.No.322 of 2022 and I.A.No.319 of 2022 to receive additional documents and for recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of marking documents were allowed and when the petitioner made an attempt to mark the Whatsapp status, email prints, whatapp screen shots, Digital photographs, HP DVD by producing his self certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the learned counsel for respondent raised objection that the said documents cannot be marked unless a certificate is produced as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Resultantly, the impugned orders came to be passed whereby the petitioner is not permitted to marked HP DVD, Bio-data, email prints, copies of bank statements, whatsapp chat screen, digital photos, copies of amazon order statements. The said order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Ms.Anita Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhusarapu Brahma Yesubabu, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Ms. Anita Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the Civil Revision Petition would contend that the learned trial Judge having allowed the petition filed for receiving the documents and the petition filed for recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the documents ought to have permitted the petitioner to mark the documents, more particularly even if certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was not produced. She would further contend that the learned trial Judge erroneously dismissed the petitioner in utter ignorance of Sections 14 & 20 of the Family Courts Act, which have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Evidence Act and that the Family Courts are empowered to receive the photocopies for adjudication of the lis. She would further contend that the impugned orders are being perverse having been passed ignoring the statutory provisions has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri Bhusarapu Brahma Yesubabu, learned counsel for respondent, would contend that since the petitioner did not produce the certificate of the proper authority, but for his self certificate, u