IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.R.P.No. 4126 of 2017 and C.M.P.No. 19356 of 2017 Mr. Shreyans Babel, S/o. Late Shri Heeralal Babel ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Coimabtore North Round Table 20, rep. by its Hon'ble Secretary

2. Round Table India, rep. by its National Secretary ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order as made in I.A.No.504 of 2017 in O.S.No.501 of 2012 dated 13.07.2017 on the file of I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan for R1 R2 - No appearance

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.501 of 2012, on the file of I Addl. Sub-Judge, Coimabtore to declare the termination made by the 1^st defendant dated 18.0.2012 as null and void.

2. The defendants also contested the suit by filing written statement and issues were framed and the case was posted for trial. At that time, the plaintiff filed the application in I.A.No.541 of 2017 under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Sec.151 of C.P.C. praying to condone the delay in production of petition mentioned document CD/DVD containing the conversation between the parties and the said application was strongly objected by the defendants stating that to receive an electronic record by way of electronic evidence, it should be annexed with the certificate as required under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Considering submissions of both sides, the trial judge dismissed the application stating the reason that no such certificate was accompanied with the said application.

3. Challenging the said findings, this Revision Petition was filed by the plaintiff contending that the trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Only before the pre-trial, he has filed that application and seeking permission to adduce document and that he has every right to produce the document at the time of trial. Hence, he prayed to challenge the findings and for that, he relied on the authority reported in 2001 (3) SCC in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 14 as follows:-

“14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)

4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for respondents would submit that to receive an electronic document, the party, who filed the application to submit an electronic record, it should accompany with the certificate as provided under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act, for which he relied on the authority reported in in Civil Appeal Nos.20825-20826 of 2017 in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paras 7 to 10 as follows :-

“7. What is laid down in Section 65B as a precondition for the admission of an electronic record, resembles what is provided in the second part of Section 136. For example, if a fact is sough