ORDER

This petition by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.275/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur is directed against the impugned common order passed on I.A.Nos.8 & 9 whereby, the said applications filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff to recall PW.1 for further evidence and permission to produce additional documents were allowed by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 & 2 and respondent No.2/defendant No.3 for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit being contested by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2, during the course of trial, respondent No.1/plaintiff examined her as PW.1 and was cross-examined by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 & 2. Subsequently, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the instant applications i.e., I.A.Nos.8 & 9 seeking to recall PW.1 for further evidence and also for permission to produce additional documents. The said applications having been opposed by the petitioners, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing both I.A.Nos.8 & 9 by holding as under:

"ORDER ON I.A.No.VIII & IX These are 2 application filed by the plaintiff order 18 rule 17 for recall of PW 1 for further chief examination PW 1 and production of document that is call record details of the plaintiff.

An affidavit is filed by the plaintiff along with IA No.8 and 9 wherein the plaintiff is substance as stated as the conversation taken place in between plaintiff and her mother through phone call and video call is relevant piece of evidence to this case. Therefore, she is intending to produce the 5 documents including the photograph and CD and call record details which are translating in writing in telugu language along with in English translation.

The defendants have filed there objections to IA No.8 and 9. The substance of objection of the defendants to IA No.8 and 9 is that the call record details and telephoning conversation both audio and video conversation are electronics evidence and the cannot be produce and admitted in the evidence without the certificate u/sec 65(b) (4) of evidence act. Hence prays the reject the IA No.8 and 9.

Heard both sides on IA No.8 and 9.

The points arises for my consideration are as under:-

1. Whether PW1 can be recall for further chief exemption?

2. Whether the plaintiff can be permitted to produced the documents under IA No.9?

3. What orders?

My findings on afford said point are as under:

Point No.1: In affirmative Point No.2: In affirmative Point No.2: As per final orders for the following reasons REASONS

1. Point No.1 and 2:-

This is suit for partition in between the laintiff and defendant No.1 and 2. plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the son and daughter of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 and 2 have set up the plea of prior partition of year 1995 and also the self acquisition of suit schedule properties. Trial as commenced. The case plaintiff is that suit properties are acquired by her father out of joint family fund and income approved from their ancestral properties at Andra Pradesh. During the cross examination of PW1 the PW1 stated that her father was paddy business in there native place at Guntur in Andra Pradesh and she has further stated that she is produced photograph and CD of the same. Therefore, she has filed the present applications the bone of contention between plaintiff and defendants is in respect of the production of the document at Sl. No. 3 to 5 that is the call records and written transcription and translation of telephoning conversation and video call conversations and CD. The focal point is principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of Arjun Pandith Rao khotkar V.s Kailash kushanrao gortiyar reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 which is the latest principles of law dealing with electronics evidence and digital documents. The le