9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. N. Palaanisamy 2011 AIR SCW 2296 whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the application to reopen the evidence and has granted permission to call PW-1 and PW-2 to confront them with the electronic evidence submitted by the applicant. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in M.P. No.2067/2023 whereby petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed and order of trial Court for recalling the plaintiff witness for further cross-examination was affirmed. Therefore, it is prayed that the aforesaid order be reviewed and petitioner be permitted to further cross examine the witness. 3. The order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC makes it clear that the erroneous de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conversion amongst the petitioner and respondents and three others, it was admitted by witnesses that amount was lent through the respondent and agreement of sale was only a security for the loan. In the light of the above position Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the application and quashed the aforesaid order considering the Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that electronic record includes a compact disc containing an electronic record of a conversation. It was also made clear that electronically recorded conversion is admissible in evidence, if the conversion is relevant to the matter in issue and the voice is identified and the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasure, addition or manipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The Court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly the Court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. If the application is allowed and the evidence is permitted and ultimately the Court finds that evidence was not genuine or relevant and did not warrant the reopening of the case recalling the witnesses, it can be made a ground for awarding exemplary costs apart from ordering prosecution if it involves fabrication of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abhayraj has already been cross-examined at length on the issue of demarcation and diversion of the disputed land by the petitioner who is a practicing Advocate and by his counsel and same is specifically observed by the trial Court in its order. Plaintiff has not produced any electronic evidence or any other evidence, which might show that further cross-examination of the witness on the point of demarcation about which lengthy cross-examination has already taken place is further necessary. Therefore, this Court dismissed the application. The facts of K.K. Velusamy (supra) are not applicable in this case, as in that case compact disc in form of electronic evidence was produced before the trial Court, in which witnesses who were sought to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
