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 defendant cannot be accepted in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. His other contention is even though the respondent/defendant had not furnished such certificate under Section 65B along with the said application, subsequently it was noted that a memo dated 06.07.2019 is claimed to have been filed by the respondent/defendant before the Trial Court. The said memo, has been inserted into the records of the Trial Court without either serving the copy of the same on the plaintiff or same being endorsed by the Trial Court. He further submits that there is also no reference in the daily order sheet regarding such a memo having been filed before the Trial Court. Thus, he submits that the respondent/defendant are not entitled for production of the said document as they have approached the Court with unclean hands. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant on the other hand submits that production of electronic records, do not mandate Section 65B certificate shall be accompanied while producing document itself. Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is required to prove the contents of the electronic records and said document can be produced at the time of leading evidence. He submits as per his instruction memo dated 06.07.2019 was indeed filed before the Trial Court, though the same do not bear any endorsement or reference in the order sheet. He submits nevertheless, the said document can be produced once again if there is any procedural irregularities in production of said document. He submit the Trial Court may be directed to consider this contention of the petitioner before taking up the matter for marking up the documents which is allowed in the impugned order.

4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that if a liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise this contention before the Trial Court at the time of marking of the documents, purpose of the filing of the petition be served.

5. Submission taken on record.

6. Heard and perused the records.

7. Since there is no dispute with regard to production of the document and the only contention urged is non-production of certificate under Section 65B as contemplated under the Evidence Act, 1872 along with the said documents, this Court do not see any error or irregularities in the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the respondent/defendant to produce the documents. However, since the technical contention with regard to requirement of production of document/certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 along with document is raised, liberty is reserved to the parties to urge the same before the Trial Court, who shall pass appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law on the p