The court affirmed the compliance with evidentiary standards under Section 65B for electronic documents, ruling that the account statement's certification was valid and upheld the lower court's decision.

JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.27/2018 has come up in this appeal aggrieved by the decree passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam as confirmed in A.S.No.101/2020 by the Additional District Court-V, Kottayam.

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of money against the appellants. The suit for recovery of money is based on a transaction entered between the appellants and the respondents with regard to purchase of certain garments. The plaintiffs contended that certain amounts were outstanding in their account in tune with Rs.11,72,007/-, which the appellants refused to honour. The claim for recovery of money was sought to be sustained on the basis of Ext.A51, certified copy of the statement of account from 01.04.2015 to 16.02.2018. The Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit, allowing the plaintiffs to recover Rs.11,72,007/- with 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, 6% per annum. On appeal by the defendants / appellants, the Additional District Court concurred the findings of the Trial Court, but however reduced the amount to Rs.9,98,724/-. The plaintiffs did not challenge the afore said reduction. However, the defendants have come up with the appeal stating that the judgments and decree of the court below cannot be sustained since Ext.A51 statement of account is not certified under Section

65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. Heard Sri.S.A.Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt.Saritha Thomas, the learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs.

4. Since the learned counsel for the appellants asserted that the statement of the account was not accompanied by a certificate as required under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, the records of the Trial Court were summoned. On perusal of Ext.A51, it is seen that the statement of account is accompanied by the certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs relied upon the decision of the apex court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others [ (2020) 7 SCC 1 ). In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret Section 65 B of the Evidence Act and also the requirement to comply with the mandate of the provisions. In paragraph 60 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“60. It may also be seen that the person who gives this certificate can be anyone out of several persons who occupy a 'responsible official position' in relation to the operation of the relevant device, as also the person who may otherwise be in the 'management of relevant activities' spoken of in Sub Section (4) of Section 65B . Considering that such certificate may also be given long after the electronic record has actually been produced by the computer, Section 65B (4) makes it clear that it is sufficient that such person gives the requisite certificate to the “best of his knowledge and belief” (Obviously, the word “and” between knowledge and belief in Section 65B (4) must be read as “or”, as a person cannot testify to the best of his knowledge and belief at the same time.”

6. In the light of the above and also in the view of the fact that Ext.A51 is accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, this Court finds that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the appellate court is perfectly legal and thus does not call for any interference.

Resultantly, finding that no substantial qu