Heard Mr. K. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bindu R. Sasthamangalam, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that the pen drive, allegedly containing the recorded conversation between the landlords and tenants, does not conform to the requirements of Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023 ( BSA ), and seeks time to cure the defect so as to enable the said pen drive to be marked as an exhibit in the proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has placed before us the chronology of events to demonstrate that the petitioners were absent on several occasions and were attempting to delay the proceedings.

4. The matter has been pending since 2021. The petitioners ought to have been diligent in ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements before seeking to produce the pen drive as evidence. The record also indicates that the petitioners have not been proceeding with due diligence.

₹