ORDER

The plaintiffs being the petitioners in OS.No.3120/2021 on the file of the learned LXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore are impugning the order dated 27.06.2022 rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 R/w Section 151 CPC seeking to produce the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

2. Heard Sri. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Vijaya Krishna Bhat M., learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners as plaintiffs filed the suit OS.No.3120/2021 seeking recovery of money from the defendant. There was exchange of several WhatsApp messages between the original plaintiff and the defendant. Those messages were produced before the trial Court along with the plaint. Since it amounts to electronic evidence, and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is required to be produced, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC seeking production of the said certificate. The trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that, when the suit is one for recovery of money, the subsequent communication between the parties are not relevant and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for producing the certificate.

4. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the relevancy of those messages and the requirement of law as specified under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which mandates production of certificate in proof of electronic evidence. Thereby, the opportunity to the plaintiffs to substantiate their contention is denied. Hence, they prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned counsel opposing the petition submitted that the WhattsApp messages relied on by the plaintiffs are wholly unnecessary to prove the contentions of the parties. The requirement of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not complied with. Under such circumstances, the trial Court rightly rejected the application. It do not call for interference by this Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. The petitioners as plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money. It is stated that the suit is based on promissory note and cheques issued. However, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that there were exchange of WhatsApp messages between the original plaintiff and the defendant. It is also stated that the copies of such WhatsApp chats are produced by the plaintiff well in advance. In view of the requirement of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the certificate is produced along with the application, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. The application came to be dismissed by the trial Court solely on the ground that, the suit is only for recovery of money and the certificate is wholly unnecessary or irrelevant. The trial Court formed an opinion that the WhatsApp chats between the original plaintiff and defendant is irrelevant in proof of the case of the plaintiffs without any basis. This amounts to prejudicing the matter. Even though, the suit is based on promissory note and cheques, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their contention for the purpose of getting decree in their favour. Therefore, I do not find any support for the opinion expressed by the trial Court that the certificate produced under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not relevant.

8. The next contention raised by the respondent is that the certificate is not in accordance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The copy of the certificate is produced before this Court as per Annexure-F. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the messages were received in the personal mobile handset of the original plaintiff and all the description of the device, details of the printer, phone number, E-mail ID etc., are furnished by the plaintiffs with a certificate by the plaintiff as required under law. Prima-facie, I do not find any irregularity in