HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.875 of 2024

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the docket order, dated 10.08.2023, passed by the XVII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OS.No.493 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of respondent, despite service of notice, therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on the material available on record.

3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The succinct facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details, are that the plaintiff filed a suit vide OS.No.493 of 2022 for awarding damages to a tune of Rs.50,00,000/- against the defendant in respect of defamatory statements made against him. The defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. The trial commenced, PW1 filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his examination and when the matter was coming up for further marking of documents, at that stage, the plaintiff filed a Memo requesting the trial Court to mark a C.D stating that the contents of Press meet circulated through WhatsApp are recorded in the said C.D and that, along with the said Memo, the plaintiff filed a Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

5. The trial Court, vide impugned docket order, rejected the said request by observing that the plaintiff is not competent to issue Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the alleged Whatsapp video stated to have been circulated and also to take it into C.D and therefore, the C.D sought to be marked is inadmissible in evidence.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court erred in observing that the plaintiff is not a competent person to issue a Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, when the said Section clearly stipulates that Certificate can be given by any person who is a responsible official position in relation to operation of device. He further submitted that the WhatsApp video clips were received by the petitioner on his mobile phone, the said contents were downloaded in computer system and copied in CD. He further submitted that the video clips in the CD are crucial to prove the case of the plaintiff and are admissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff being owner of the mobile device is competent to issue Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, prayed to allow this Revision.

7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- (i) Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (ii) Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer

8. This Court has bestowed its attention to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and perused the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the Learned counsel for the plaintiff.

9. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has detailed as to the persons who are competent to give a Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. For better understanding, the same is extracted as hereunder:-

“It may also be seen that the person who gives this certificate can be anyone out of several persons who occupy a ‘responsible official position’ in relation to the operation of the relevant device, as also the person who may otherwise be in the ‘management of relevant activities’ spoken of in Sub-section (4) of Section 65B. Considering that such certificate may also be given long after the electronic record has actually been produced by the computer, Section 65B(4) makes it clear that it is sufficient that such person gives the requisite certificate to