[2026:RJ-JP:14687]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3209/2026

1 Ved Prakash Kataria, Aged About 83 Years, Son Of Shri Nirmalchand Kataria.

2 Smt. Rajbala Kataria Wife Of Shri Ved Prakash Kataria, Aged About 81 Years.

Both Residents Of Flat No. G-2 Plot No. C-170 Swena Gokul Apartment, Sunder Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur Presently Residents - 302, Kings Landing, Vidyalaya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.

----Petitioners/Defendants Versus

1 Rakesh Gupta Son Of The Late Shri Chhajju Ram Gupta, Aged About 83 Years, Resident Of House No. G-1002, Mahima Panas, Jagatpura, Jaipur.

---Plaintiff/Respondent

2 Jawahar Lal Deswal Son Of Shri Anant Ram Ji, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Flat No. C-6/6318 Basant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

3 Sub Registrar Jaipur I, Office Of Sub Registrar I Banipark, Jaipur.

----Defendant/Performa Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharishi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

08/04/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 03.04.2025, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (pari materia to Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) for admission of electronic records has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents for which secondary evidence has been permitted are electronic records. He further submits that since a certificate is required under Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BSA, 2023”), permission to lead secondary evidence in absence of certificate could not have been granted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an earlier application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 12.07.2024. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that it is a settled principle of law that before permitting electronic record in evidence to be admitted as secondary evidence, the documents must be produced along with a certificate as provided under Section 63(4) of the BSA, 2023. Only thereafter can such electronic evidence be permitted to be read in secondary evidence. However, he submits that the other argument of the petitioner is not tenable, as the earlier application was rejected on technical grounds, i.e., it did not disclose material facts and was not supported by the requisite certificate.

5. He further submits that vide order dated 12.07.2024, the application was rejected on technical grounds and not on merits.

Thus, the same cannot operate as res judicata.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record.

7. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 has been passed merely permitting the respondent to lead secondary evidence, despite the absence of the certificate mandated under Section 63(4) of the BSA, 2023.

8. This Court also finds that in the absence of a certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA, 2023, no electronic evidence can be read either as primary or secondary evidence. Therefore, this Court holds that the learned Trial Court has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order dated 03.04.2025. However, it is also a settled principle of law that the requirement of a certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA, 2023 is a curable defect and may be rectified at any stage before the evidence is led.

9. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the order dated 03.04.2025 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent is granted liberty to file a certificate in support of the electronic evidence strictly in accordance with the provisions of the BSA, 2023.

10. The learned Trial Court shall thereafter decide the application, con