Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.09.2025 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN CRP.No.3248 of 2023 CMP.No.20026 of 2023 M.Kamaraj ... Petitioner vs.
Dr.M.Sudheer ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.7 of 2023 in O.S.No.2267 of 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Advocate for M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates
The court reaffirmed that objections to the admissibility of electronic evidence, particularly under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, should be raised during the evidence marking stage, allowing the trial court to address admissibility at the final judgment.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227; Indian Evidence Act - Section 65B - Admissibility of electronic evidence - The petitioner challenges the lower court's dismissal of an application to exclude a pen drive and Section 65B certificate, arguing the need for primary evidence in accordance with precedent cases regarding electronic documentation. Court states the defendant's opportunity to present legal objections on admissibility remains open at trial. (Paras 2, 4, 12)
(B) Evidence - Applicability of electronic evidence - The Court acknowledges that precedential cases examine the criteria for admitting electronic records, emphasizing the distinction between admissibility and mode of proof in evidence assessment. (Paras 8, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to prevent the defendant from marking electronic evidence without presenting original documents, claiming procedural deficiencies in how the evidence was introduced. The trial court had previously allowed the pen drive as potential evidence, leading to this revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court finds that the order dismissing the petition is lawful and reiterates the trial court's role in permitting evidence, with emphasis on the need for a comprehensive examination of admissibility at the conclusion of the trial.
Issues: The core issues involved the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence without primary evidence and procedural adherence to Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the petitioner retains the right to challenge admissibility at trial once evidence is presented, affirming that all contentions regarding evidence must await the trial phase for resolution.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.Originally the plaintiff / M.Kamaraj has filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.2267 of 2020 before this Court for recovery of money. The defendant / respondent herein filed leave to defend application in A.No.1172 of 2018. The learned Master passed a conditional order dated 22.03.2018 directing to furnish security for Rs.30,00,000/-. The aforesaid order was not complied by the defendant and the learned Master dismissed the said application on 26.04.2018 and decreed the Suit.
2. The defendant has preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.505 of2023 before this Court against the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.6 of 2023 in O.S.No.2267 of 2020 and the same was allowed and the Court below was directed to receive a Pen Drive along with Section 65B Certificate, vide order dated 09.03.2023. At this juncture, the plaintiff has filed a petition in I.A.No.7 of 2023 in O.S.No.2267 of 2020 under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC not to permit the defendant to mark the pen drive along with certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, without production of original as the same is inadmissible. Upon considering the arguments advanced on either side, the Court below dismissed the said application, vide order dated 18.07.2023 on the ground that the documentary evidence in the form of electronic evidence available with the defendant should not be blocked as the trial Court is a court of evidence. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present civil revision petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following contentions:
(i) The Court below failed to consider that initially the Suit was filed under Order VI Rule 1 CPC, Order VII Rule 1 CPC r/w. Order XXXVII Rules 1 & 2 of CPC as summary suit. The respondent / defendant filed leave to defend application in A.S.No.1172 of 2018 and counter affidavit contending that by his own admission, the defendant in his reply notice and as well as in the affidavit in support of the application for leave to defend, has made contradictory statements and he has admitted his transactions.
(ii) The Court below failed to note that the defendant instead of coming into the witness box filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2022 to refer the pen drive containing voice recording as available in the pendrive enclosed with the petition for voice analysis along with the voice samples of the petitioner, to which no document was produced before the Court below.
(iii) The respondent/defendant had never whispered anything about the purported pen drive containing the call recordings at any instance prior to filing I.A.No.6 of 2023 and therefore, the principle of estoppel applies.
(iv) The Court below ought to have considered that I.A.No.3 of2022 was filed regarding the voice recordings alleged to have recorded by the respondent himself through voice recorder in his phone. Further, I.A.No.6 of 2023 was filed to mark the pen drive containing the call recordings and the defendant is misleading and confusing the Court and attempting to mark the purported pen drive created by him after filing of the Suit.
(v) The Court below failed to note that the document proposed to be produced was neither filed along with the written statement, which itself was filed after enormous delay. The very document i.e., proposed to be filed at this later stage is in fact secondary evidence which, by no stretch of imagination can be presumed to be proper. The defendant has not explained anywhere in his pleadings as to the original source or about the existence of the primary evidence, which ought to have been filed along with the written statement.
(vi) The Court below failed to consider that as per Section 65 B(4) of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence will be taken on record along with Section 65 B Certificate, when the primary evidence is available. As per Clause (a) of Section 65 of Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given o
