By virtue of the provisions of Section 65A, the contents of electronic records may be proved in evidence by the parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B.
13. Sub clause 1 of Section 65B stipulates that any information contained in electronic record shall be deemed to be a document and shall be admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the originals, if the conditions mentioned in the said Section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question. Sub-clause 2 of Section 65B lays down the conditions required to be satisfies for admissibility of the electronic record and reads as follows:
65B(2). The conditions referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer.
(b) During the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
14. Sub section 4, which is pertinent to the matter in issue, reads as under:
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,-
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this Sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
15. The Apex Court in State v. Navjot Sandhu , while examining the provisions of newly added Sections 65B, held that in a given case, it may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub section 4 of Section 65B is not filed, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given. It was held by the Court that the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Paragraph-150 of the judgment which is apposite, reads as under:
150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, ?copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies?. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.
2. Leave is sought by the plaintiffs to file supplementary affidavit of Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli ((PW-1) on the ground that the Power of Attorneys in favor of Mr.M.S.I. Lakdawala, Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53, the originals of which were with the plaintiffs, have been lost/misplaced and despite all reasonable efforts made by PW-1 Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli, the same could not be traced out. Accordingly, it is prayed that the photocopies of the same, already on record, be accepted and allowed to be proved as secondary evidence.
3. Leave is also sought by the plaintiffs to file the affidavit of Ms. Venita Gabriel in view of the amendment of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to the plaintiff, inadvertently, the said amendment, incorporating Sections 65A and 65B, which deal with the mode and manner in which electronic data can be proved in a court of law, escaped the plaintiffs' attention. The proposed affidavit of Ms.Venita Gabriel seeks to comply with the requirements of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of electronic data maintained and relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of their case as on 1999. In addition, the plaintiffs also wish to place on record the updated data as on April, 2005, pertaining to their trademark 'MAGGI', registered worldwide, along with copies of the registration certificates.
4. The application is contested by the defendants by filing a reply alleging that the application has been filed with the sole object of delaying the disposal of the case. According to the defendants, had the originals of Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53 been available with the plaintiffs, the same would have been produced by the plaintiffs when PW-1 Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli was examined on 20th August, 2001 and 21st August, 2001. It is categorically denied by the defendants that the said documents were available with the plaintiff while preparing and swearing the affidavits filed by PW-1 Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli, and have been lost/misplaced subsequently.
5. As regards the electronic data sought to be proved in evidence by the plaintiffs, after complying with the provisions of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, the defendants assert that the updated data as on April, 2005 is not essential for determination of controversies between the parties and, in any case, the documents sought to be produced are not in the court language and for this reason the same cannot be taken on record.
6. In the course of hearing of the application, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs fairly conceded that the documents which were not in the court language and were not English translations of the electronic copies be ignored. With regard to the remaining electronic data, my attention was drawn to Ex.P-6 (Collectively), being the 'Protection Lists' at pages 23 to 70 of the documents file, filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1999 with the affidavit of Mr.B.Murli. Counsel for the plaintiffs points out that the said 'Protection Lists' (Ex.P-6 Colly.) are electronic data placed on record by the plaintiffs in respect of their trademark 'MAGGI' in the year 1999, and the said electronic data having since been updated, the updated data reflecting change of status from the year 1999 to 2005, was sought to be proved.
7. As regards the Power of Attorneys Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53, it was submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs that photocopies of the same were misplaced and could not be traced out despite best endeavors of the plaintiff.
8. On scrutiny of the record, it clearly emerges that the photocopies of the Power of Attorneys (Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53) were placed on the record by the plaintiffs at the time of institution of the suit and, presumably the same must have been prepared from the originals thereof. Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act provides for adducing secondary evidence with regard to the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original has been destroyed or lost. No cogent reason is pointed out by the counsel for defendants as to why the plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 65(c) to prove the photocopies of the Power of Attorneys filed by the plaintiffs at the time of institution of the suit.
9. According to Section 63(2) of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence inter alia means and includes, ?Copies made from the originals by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies?.
10. Section 65 of the Evidence Act enables secondary evidence of the contents of a documents to be adduced if the original is of such a nature. Section 65(d) specially provides that secondary evidence of the existence, condition, or contents of a document may adduced if ?the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable?.
11. Rapid rise in the field of information and technology in the last decade of 20th Century and the increasing reliance placed upon electronic record by the world at large necessitated the laying down of a law relating to admissibility and proof of electronic record. The legislature responded to the crying need of the day by inserting into the Evidence Act Sections 65A and 65B, relating to admissibility of computer generated evidence in the only practical way it could so as to eliminate the challenge to electronic evidence.
12. By virtue of the provisions of Section 65A, the contents of electronic records may be proved in evidence by the parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B.
13. Sub clause 1 of Section 65B stipulates that any information contained in electronic record shall be deemed to be a document and shall be admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the originals, if the conditions mentioned in the said Section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question. Sub-clause 2 of Section 65B lays down the conditions required to be satisfies for admissibility of the electronic record and reads as follows:
65B(2). The conditions referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer.
(b) During the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
14. Sub section 4, which is pertinent to the matter in issue, reads as under:
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,-
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this Sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
15. The Apex Court in State v. Navjot Sandhu , while examining the provisions of newly added Sections 65B, held that in a given case, it may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub section 4 of Section 65B is not filed, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given. It was held by the Court that the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Paragraph-150 of the judgment which is apposite, reads as under:
150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, ?copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies?. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.
16. The plaintiffs in the instant case seek to prove the electronic data already on record (Ex.P-6 colly.) and the updated electronic data under Sub-section 1 of Section 65B after complying with the provisions of Sub-section 4 by filing affidavit of Ms.Venita Gabriel accompanied by the requisite certificate. This provision was admittedly inserted by way of amendment in the existing Act w.e.f. 17.10.2000. The present suit was instituted on 24th May, 1993. Even assuming that the application for proving on record the electronic data has been filed after some delay, there is no plausible reason given by the defendants as to why the explanation rendered by counsel for the plaintiffs that the amended provisions escaped his attention, be not accepted. Even otherwise, to my mind, there appears to be no ostensible reason why the plaintiffs should seek to delay the suit filed by him on the pretext of filing additional documents. However, there appears to be some substance in the contention of counsel for the defendants that the documents without English translations be ignored.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed to the extent that affidavits of Mr. Balasubraniam Murli and Ms.Venita Gabriel are taken on record along with the documents sought to be proved except documents without English translations thereof. Needless to state that the defendants will be at liberty to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits on the averments made therein and the enclosed documents.
18. I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.
19. List before the Joint Registrar on 18th October, 2006 for further cross-examination of PW-1 Mr. Balasubramaniam Murli.
Print Page
13. Sub clause 1 of Section 65B stipulates that any information contained in electronic record shall be deemed to be a document and shall be admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the originals, if the conditions mentioned in the said Section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question. Sub-clause 2 of Section 65B lays down the conditions required to be satisfies for admissibility of the electronic record and reads as follows:
65B(2). The conditions referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer.
(b) During the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
14. Sub section 4, which is pertinent to the matter in issue, reads as under:
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,-
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this Sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
15. The Apex Court in State v. Navjot Sandhu , while examining the provisions of newly added Sections 65B, held that in a given case, it may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub section 4 of Section 65B is not filed, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given. It was held by the Court that the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Paragraph-150 of the judgment which is apposite, reads as under:
150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, ?copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies?. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.
Delhi High Court
Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. ... vs Essar Industries And Ors. on 4 September, 2006
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for leave to place on record the supplementary affidavit of Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli ((PW-1) and affidavit of Ms.Venita Gabriel, both dated 29th April, 2005.2. Leave is sought by the plaintiffs to file supplementary affidavit of Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli ((PW-1) on the ground that the Power of Attorneys in favor of Mr.M.S.I. Lakdawala, Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53, the originals of which were with the plaintiffs, have been lost/misplaced and despite all reasonable efforts made by PW-1 Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli, the same could not be traced out. Accordingly, it is prayed that the photocopies of the same, already on record, be accepted and allowed to be proved as secondary evidence.
3. Leave is also sought by the plaintiffs to file the affidavit of Ms. Venita Gabriel in view of the amendment of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to the plaintiff, inadvertently, the said amendment, incorporating Sections 65A and 65B, which deal with the mode and manner in which electronic data can be proved in a court of law, escaped the plaintiffs' attention. The proposed affidavit of Ms.Venita Gabriel seeks to comply with the requirements of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of electronic data maintained and relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of their case as on 1999. In addition, the plaintiffs also wish to place on record the updated data as on April, 2005, pertaining to their trademark 'MAGGI', registered worldwide, along with copies of the registration certificates.
4. The application is contested by the defendants by filing a reply alleging that the application has been filed with the sole object of delaying the disposal of the case. According to the defendants, had the originals of Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53 been available with the plaintiffs, the same would have been produced by the plaintiffs when PW-1 Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli was examined on 20th August, 2001 and 21st August, 2001. It is categorically denied by the defendants that the said documents were available with the plaintiff while preparing and swearing the affidavits filed by PW-1 Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli, and have been lost/misplaced subsequently.
5. As regards the electronic data sought to be proved in evidence by the plaintiffs, after complying with the provisions of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, the defendants assert that the updated data as on April, 2005 is not essential for determination of controversies between the parties and, in any case, the documents sought to be produced are not in the court language and for this reason the same cannot be taken on record.
6. In the course of hearing of the application, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs fairly conceded that the documents which were not in the court language and were not English translations of the electronic copies be ignored. With regard to the remaining electronic data, my attention was drawn to Ex.P-6 (Collectively), being the 'Protection Lists' at pages 23 to 70 of the documents file, filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1999 with the affidavit of Mr.B.Murli. Counsel for the plaintiffs points out that the said 'Protection Lists' (Ex.P-6 Colly.) are electronic data placed on record by the plaintiffs in respect of their trademark 'MAGGI' in the year 1999, and the said electronic data having since been updated, the updated data reflecting change of status from the year 1999 to 2005, was sought to be proved.
7. As regards the Power of Attorneys Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53, it was submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs that photocopies of the same were misplaced and could not be traced out despite best endeavors of the plaintiff.
8. On scrutiny of the record, it clearly emerges that the photocopies of the Power of Attorneys (Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53) were placed on the record by the plaintiffs at the time of institution of the suit and, presumably the same must have been prepared from the originals thereof. Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act provides for adducing secondary evidence with regard to the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original has been destroyed or lost. No cogent reason is pointed out by the counsel for defendants as to why the plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 65(c) to prove the photocopies of the Power of Attorneys filed by the plaintiffs at the time of institution of the suit.
9. According to Section 63(2) of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence inter alia means and includes, ?Copies made from the originals by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies?.
10. Section 65 of the Evidence Act enables secondary evidence of the contents of a documents to be adduced if the original is of such a nature. Section 65(d) specially provides that secondary evidence of the existence, condition, or contents of a document may adduced if ?the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable?.
11. Rapid rise in the field of information and technology in the last decade of 20th Century and the increasing reliance placed upon electronic record by the world at large necessitated the laying down of a law relating to admissibility and proof of electronic record. The legislature responded to the crying need of the day by inserting into the Evidence Act Sections 65A and 65B, relating to admissibility of computer generated evidence in the only practical way it could so as to eliminate the challenge to electronic evidence.
12. By virtue of the provisions of Section 65A, the contents of electronic records may be proved in evidence by the parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B.
13. Sub clause 1 of Section 65B stipulates that any information contained in electronic record shall be deemed to be a document and shall be admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the originals, if the conditions mentioned in the said Section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question. Sub-clause 2 of Section 65B lays down the conditions required to be satisfies for admissibility of the electronic record and reads as follows:
65B(2). The conditions referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer.
(b) During the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
14. Sub section 4, which is pertinent to the matter in issue, reads as under:
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,-
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this Sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
15. The Apex Court in State v. Navjot Sandhu , while examining the provisions of newly added Sections 65B, held that in a given case, it may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub section 4 of Section 65B is not filed, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given. It was held by the Court that the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Paragraph-150 of the judgment which is apposite, reads as under:
150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, ?copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies?. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in Sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.
16. The plaintiffs in the instant case seek to prove the electronic data already on record (Ex.P-6 colly.) and the updated electronic data under Sub-section 1 of Section 65B after complying with the provisions of Sub-section 4 by filing affidavit of Ms.Venita Gabriel accompanied by the requisite certificate. This provision was admittedly inserted by way of amendment in the existing Act w.e.f. 17.10.2000. The present suit was instituted on 24th May, 1993. Even assuming that the application for proving on record the electronic data has been filed after some delay, there is no plausible reason given by the defendants as to why the explanation rendered by counsel for the plaintiffs that the amended provisions escaped his attention, be not accepted. Even otherwise, to my mind, there appears to be no ostensible reason why the plaintiffs should seek to delay the suit filed by him on the pretext of filing additional documents. However, there appears to be some substance in the contention of counsel for the defendants that the documents without English translations be ignored.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed to the extent that affidavits of Mr. Balasubraniam Murli and Ms.Venita Gabriel are taken on record along with the documents sought to be proved except documents without English translations thereof. Needless to state that the defendants will be at liberty to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits on the averments made therein and the enclosed documents.
18. I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.
19. List before the Joint Registrar on 18th October, 2006 for further cross-examination of PW-1 Mr. Balasubramaniam Murli.
No comments:
Post a Comment