Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The captioned writ petition is filed by the

defendant questioning the orders dated 13.04.2018

passed by XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru

on I.A.No.10 filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of CPC

in O.S.No.2602/2012 seeking permission to produce

documents and I.A.No.11 filed under Order 65-B of

Indian Evidence Act, to treat the statement of

accounts from 2004-2011 as originals and to consider

them as documentary evidence in support of the case

of defendant are rejected.

3

3.

The respondent-plaintiff has instituted a

suit for recovery of money. The said suit is duly

contested by the present petitioner-defendant. When

the suit was at the stage of recording of evidence of

defendants, the defendants came

up

with the

aforesaid application seeking leave of the Court to

produce statement of accounts and also the Board

Resolutions. The learned Judge has rejected the

application on the premise that the entries made by

the defendants in the computers which are not

supported by other documents and without furnishing

original ledger accounts regarding sundry creditors is

not admissible in evidence. The resolution copy

which is found to be the certified copy is also not

taken on record on the premise that the petitioner has

not produced original resolution.

4

4.

Heard

the

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner. There is no representation for respondent.

Perused the order under challenge.

5.

The petitioner-defendant intends to lead

rebuttal evidence by placing reliance on the accounts

maintained in the system. The petitioner has filed an

application seeking production of those documents by

contending that he intends to adduce rebuttal

evidence by placing reliance on the same and has

furnished the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian

Evidence Act. The petitioner is placing reliance on

eleven computer generated statement of accounts of

the petitioner-company. The Court while rejecting the

application has virtually misread the provisions of

Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. If the

petitioner intends to place reliance on the computer

generated statements, then this Court is unable to

understand as to how the petitioner can be directed to

5

secure original of the data which is stored on desktop.

When a document prepared by its maker using a

computer is sought to be given in evidence, the

contents may be proved in accordance with the

provisions of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.

There cannot be originals of computer generated data.

The question is as to whether the documents which

are sought to be produced have any evidentiary value

or not has to be tested only after full fledged trial.

Therefore,

the

order

under

challenge

is

not

sustainable.

6.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated

13.04.2018 passed by XIV Additional City Civil Judge

at Bengaluru on I.A.No.10 filed under Order VIII Rule

1(A) and I.A.No.11 filed under Section 65-B of Indian

Evidence Act in O.S.No.2602/2012 are set aside.

6

The petitioner is permitted to produce and rely

on the documents covered under I.A.No.10. It is open

for the plaintiff to cross-examine the petitioner insofar

as the aforesaid documents are concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-