SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1915

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. KAMAL
mr mark d souza – Appellant
Versus
mr harsha dandapani – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:ANANTHARAM G R ,Respondent Advocate: RAJESWARA P N

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner who is the plaintiff in suit in O.S.No.5883/2010 pending consideration on the file of XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'') is before this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated order dated 11.07.2019 passed on an application filed by the respondent /defendant under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of CPC (I.A.No.9), by which the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent/defendant permitting them to produce certain documents enlisted thereunder.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition vehemently submits that the documents sought to be produced by the respondent/defendant are the e-mail correspondences downloaded from the personal computer of the respondent /defendant the said documents being electronic records ought to have been produced along with a certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 which is a mandatory requirement. That though this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the Trial Court, the Trial Court has not considered the same. Hence, he submits that the document produced by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top