HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. KAMAL
mr mark d souza – Appellant
Versus
mr harsha dandapani – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.