Digital Evidence - The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar expressed its view that to prove the voice of a person, the petitioner has to produce the basic and primary evidence before the Court i.e. Hard Disc of a System either may be Computer, Laptop or any Smart Phone which was equipped with the information. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge also expressed its view that the petitioner herein did not file such CD along with the counter filed by her in the main petition, and came forward with an application to receive the CD as additional evidence at a belated stage. Ultimately, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge held that any Compact Disc cannot be treated as secondary evidence unless and until the hard disc and its vital parts are filed and are approved by the Competent Authority as connected devices. So, by taking the said view, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar dismissed the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner by order dated 07-11-2012.

CRP 86 / 2013

CRPSR 214 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SMT. N.VIDYA RANI  VST.HARI KUMAR
PET.ADV. : BRAHMADANDI RAMESHRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  MAHABUBNAGAR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 86 OF 2013
O R D E R:

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner. Respondent/Husband – T. Hari Kumar has filed O.P.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act ( for short ‘the Act’) against Petitioner-Wife – Mrs. N. Vidya Rani for restitution of conjugal rights.

2.       In the course of enquiry in the said petition, the petitioner herein filed an application vide I.A. No.811 of 2012, seeking to receive the Compact Disc (CD) as evidence on her behalf.  According to her, it contains the conversation recorded between her and her husband on
19-04-2011 at Bangalore and stored the same in a Multi Media Voice Recorder and then the said recording was copied on the CD. 

3.       The said petition was opposed by the respondent/husband before the Trial Court by filing a counter contending inter alia that the CD cannot be accepted as secondary evidence.

4.       The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar expressed its view that 
to prove the voice of a person, the petitioner has to produce the basic and primary evidence before the Court i.e. Hard Disc of a System either may be Computer, Laptop or any Smart Phone which was equipped with the information. 
 The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge also expressed its view that 
the petitioner herein did not file such CD along with the counter filed by her in the main petition, and came forward with an application to receive the CD as additional evidence at a belated stage. 
Ultimately, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge held that any Compact Disc cannot be treated as secondary evidence unless and until the hard disc and its vital parts are filed and are approved by the Competent Authority as connected devices.  So, by taking the said view, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar dismissed the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner by order
dated 07-11-2012. 

5.       I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge. The application filed by the Revision Petitioner also does not show as to what was the abusive language used by the Respondent/Husband and in what way the conversation contained in the CD is helpful to prove her contention in the main petition filed by the Respondent-husband under section-9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  In view of the same, absolutely I see no merits in this revision.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.  Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                          ________________
      R. KANTHA RAO, J.
January 21, 2013.
MGR/ISL





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.