THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR C.R.P. Nos.634 and 635 of 2019 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar Since, the present Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common order out of same suit, being disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P.Nos.634 of 2019 and 635 of 2019 are filed being aggrieved by the common order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad in I.A.No.969 of 2018 and I.A.No.970 of 2018 respectively in C.O.S.No.56 of 2018.

3. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Phillix Law Firm representing Sri Md. Nawaz Hyder Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.

4. The petitioner herein is defendant in the suit, which is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,77,92,000/- from the petitioner along with interest and costs.

5. Originally, the respondent herein filed O.S.No.355 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad on 30.04.2013. Subsequently, after establishment of Commercial Courts, the said suit was renumbered as C.O.S.No.56 of 2018.

6. The facts in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff Company is engaged in the activity of manufacturing and exporting of various types of electrical transformers. During the course of business, the respondent has received an export orders from Kenya Power & Light Company (KPLC) to manufacture and deliver 13 Nos. of Transformers and its accessories at various delivery points at Kenya, and accordingly manufactured the same. In this regard, the respondent engaged the logistic services of the petitioner herein for lifting of the transformers from their work place at Rudraram to Mumbai Port, handle customs clearance, ship to Mombasa Port (Kenya) and deliver to KPLC sites for a contract value of approximately Rs.3.68 crores by entering into an agreement. Subsequently, on account of disputes between the parties with respect to the payment of amounts due, the respondent filed the above suit.

7. During pendency of the suit, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.969 of 2018 under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( for short ‘the Act’) r/w and Section 151 of CPC to receive the documents which are filed along with the plaint and to mark the same as Exhibits and I.A.No.970 of 2018 to receive the documents i.e. purchase orders, Minutes of meeting, bunch of e-mail correspondences between the parties, payment details, statement of account and legal notice etc. filed along with the plaint as secondary evidence and to mark the same as Exhibits A-3 to A-14.

8. The petitioner/defendant filed his counter-affidavit to the above Interlocutory Applications, while denying the material averments, it is contended that the requirement under Section 65B of the Act for furnishing of affidavit has to be applied, when such electronic evidence is produced by a person, who is in possession to produce, such certificate being in control of the said device. The respondent/plaintiff has not furnished the certificate as mandated under Section 65B of the Act, and that the documents sought to be received as secondary evidence cannot be permitted.

9. The learned Trial Court by common order dated 29.01.2019 allowed the Interlocutory Applications observing that the respondent herein contended that the documents referred in the Interlocutory Applications are the Xerox Copies traced out from the originals and the originals were misplaced due to transfer of the employees, and that the petitioner herein without disputing the e-mails sought to be received, wanted to file affidavit under Section 65B Act. The learned Trial Court allowed the Interlocutory Applications filed subject to filing of affidavit under Section 65B of the Act.

10. Assailing the same, t