Karnataka High Court
Sobha Developers Limited vs M/S. Matangi Iron & Steel Company on 2 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 25184 OF 2018(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED
(PRESENTLY KNOWN AS SOBHA LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPROATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SOBHA
SARJAPUR MARATHHALLI OUTER RING ROAD
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU-560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR KESHAVAMURTHY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.S.VENKATANARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. MATANGI IRON & STEEL COMPANY
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
NO.13, 2ND FLOOR, 17TH MAIN,
H.A.L. 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 008
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR DHIRAJ AGARWAL
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M A AZEER KHURAISHI, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 13.4.2018 PASSED BY XIV ADDL. CITY
CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE ON I.A.10 IN O.S.2602/2012
AT ANNEX-A AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.10 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1(A) OF CPC, 1908
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The captioned writ petition is filed by the defendant questioning the orders dated 13.04.2018 passed by XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru on I.A.No.10 filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of CPC in O.S.No.2602/2012 seeking permission to produce documents and I.A.No.11 filed under Order 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, to treat the statement of accounts from 2004-2011 as originals and to consider them as documentary evidence in support of the case of defendant are rejected.
3
3. The respondent-plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery of money. The said suit is duly contested by the present petitioner-defendant. When the suit was at the stage of recording of evidence of defendants, the defendants came up with the aforesaid application seeking leave of the Court to produce statement of accounts and also the Board Resolutions. The learned Judge has rejected the application on the premise that the entries made by the defendants in the computers which are not supported by other documents and without furnishing original ledger accounts regarding sundry creditors is not admissible in evidence. The resolution copy which is found to be the certified copy is also not taken on record on the premise that the petitioner has not produced original resolution.
4
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for respondent. Perused the order under challenge.
5. The petitioner-defendant intends to lead rebuttal evidence by placing reliance on the accounts maintained in the system. The petitioner has filed an application seeking production of those documents by contending that he intends to adduce rebuttal evidence by placing reliance on the same and has furnished the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner is placing reliance on eleven computer generated statement of accounts of the petitioner-company. The Court while rejecting the application has virtually misread the provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. If the petitioner intends to place reliance on the computer generated statements, then this Court is unable to understand as to how the petitioner can be directed to 5 secure original of the data which is stored on desktop. When a document prepared by its maker using a computer is sought to be given in evidence, the contents may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. There cannot be originals of computer generated data. The question is as to whether the documents which are sought to be produced have any evidentiary value or not has to be tested only after full fledged trial. Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable.
6. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 13.04.2018 passed by XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru on I.A.No.10 filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) and I.A.No.11 filed under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in O.S.No.2602/2012 are set aside. 6
The petitioner is permitted to produce and rely on the documents covered under I.A.No.10. It is open for the plaintiff to cross-examine the petitioner insofar as the aforesaid documents are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-