ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Mr. Shashikantha, learned Counsel for the Respondent has objected to the marking of the tour CDs produced and identified as MPEGAV-2, MPEGAV-5, MPEGAV-6 and MPEGAV-14, from out of the 14 CDs said to be comprising the videography of the event, which has been videographed by persons commissioned by the Election Commissioner of India, to videograph the happenings during the elections to the Karnataka Assembly from the stage of filing of nomination paper before a Returning Officer till the stage of declaration of results and in respect of No. 151 K.R. Puram Assembly Constituency in Karnataka State, pointing out that when the Petitioner herself had described the entire event is comprised in 14 CDs, the entire sequence of events videographed and as depicted in the 14 CDs should be taken to constitute one document and if the Petitioner now wants to mark only 4 CDs from out of the 14 CDs which had been placed before this Court, it amounts to recording of evidence in truncated manner, in the sense that what is sought to be marked being only a part of the document, such marking of 4 CDs from amongst the 14 CDs which were all initially sought to be placed. are produced before the Court as per the prayer made in Misc. Cvl. 15192/2010 should not be permitted as there is no provision or system or practice of marking or even the Court permitting the marking of a part of the document. 2. It is very vehemently urged that unless a document is placed or marked before the Court as one document and the Court is in a position to view the document in a comprehensive manner and even assuming a litigant wants to place reliance only on a part of the document for the purpose of his or her case, what can be marked being the entire document and not part of the document and therefore, it is submitted that either the Petitioner produces and marks the entire 14 CDs as one document or nothing at all. The attempt to mark only 4 CDs should not be permitted by the Court. 3. The attempt to mark only 4 CDs should not be permitted by the Court. 3. Countering this argument Petitioner, has submitted that while the application in fact was one for producing all 14 CDs and when the application had come for orders, the Petitioner on realising that if all the 14 CDs produced before the court are to be marked they all are required to be viewed, it may be quite time consuming and therefore, the Petitioner bad restricted her prayer for marking all the 14 CDs confining it to the marking of the 4 CDs which contain/show the relevant state of facts concerning the Petitioner and the present petition and contains the videography of the circumstances on which the Petitioner is relying and as is indicated in the affidavit supporting the application and therefore, had filed a memo for restricting the marking confining it to marking of CD Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 14; that the memo was ordered on 16.11.2010 permitting the marking of the 4 CDs on behalf of the Petitioner and was subject to the objections that can be raised in accordance with law on behalf of the Respondent and a wrong description of CD No. MPEGAV-2 as CD No. MPEGAV-3 has been corrected subsequently by the order dated 12.1.2011, passed on Misc. Cvl.21452/2010 and therefore, submits that the marking of documents confining it to only 4 CDs being with regard to the relevancy and not to waste the Court's precious time, that cannot be now converted into a situation for the benefit or to the advantage of the Respondent to raise such untenable objection at this stage. It is submitted that the objection is not tenable and therefore, the Petitioner is permitted to mark 4 CDs. 4. I have considered the objections raised on behalf of the Respondent, and the case and response of the Petitioner. 5. The word "document" described in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: "Document".- "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. 5. The word "document" described in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: "Document".- "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. The "evidence" is also described as under: "Evidence".- "Evidence" means and includes - (1) all statements which the Court permits is requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence: (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence. Petitioner has drawn attention to the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Evidence Act reading as under: 39. What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers.-When any statement of which evidence is given forms part of a longer statement, or of a conversation or part of an isolated document, or is contained in a document which forms part of a book, or is contained in part of electronic record or of a connected series of letters or papers, evidence shall be given of so much and no more of the statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers as the Court considers necessary in that particular case to the full understanding of the nature and effect of the statement, and of the circumstances under which it was made. and has submitted that, the relevancy of documentary evidence which is to support the oral evidence and when it is in the form of a part of a conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers as indicated in and provided for in the Section and that Section 39 specifically enables marking of even the 4 CDs which the Petitioner seeks to mark as there is no impediment for the same. 6. Indian Evidence Act drafted in the year 1872 when our country was under the British Rule and as a colonial state has obviously its origin in the corresponding English law regulating the production of evidence before the Courts in England. 6. Indian Evidence Act drafted in the year 1872 when our country was under the British Rule and as a colonial state has obviously its origin in the corresponding English law regulating the production of evidence before the Courts in England. Evidence Act is in the context of regulating production of evidence before the Courts and under the conventional English legal system. 7. Indian Evidence Act 1872 is one piece of vintage legislation which has survived the tests of time and has remained virtually intact but for sporadic amendments here and there and that too not an amendment which could have changed the original contents of the scheme of the Act in any substantial manner. 8. In fact, such a major surgery is attempted only by the amendment made to the Indian Evidence Act as a sequel to the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the further amendment to this Act by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. 9. Consequential amendments brought about in the Indian Evidence Act by Act 21 of 2000 and Act 10/2009 are to be found in several sections of the evidence Act, namely in Sections 22A, 45A, 47A, 65A, 65B, 67A, 73A, 81A, 85A, 85B, 85C, 88A, 90A, 131A and more by way of engrafting additional sections/provisions to the parent Act. 10. In the present context, the definition of document whether intended or by oversight has remained without any affectation by the amendments in terms of Act 21 of 2000 and Act 10/2009. However, the definition of the word 'evidence' has been suitably modified so as to include "All documents, including electronic records" produced for the inspection of the Court and further reads, that such documents are called documentary evidence. 11. Section 39 as amended, enables not only of marking a document which forms part of a longer conversation or even a part of an isolated document and it contained in the part of electronic book or connected series etc. as part of evidence but also the language of Section 39 is very clear to positively indicate the production of a part of an electronic recording as a document. 12. as part of evidence but also the language of Section 39 is very clear to positively indicate the production of a part of an electronic recording as a document. 12. While in the conventional sense of the word 'document' perhaps it was easy to identity a sale transaction as one document and also an agreement or a contract as one document or any other instrument, in writing, creating/extinguishing rights between the contracting parties, has been described as a document, in so far as leading evidence in the form of electronic devices is concerned, the same being as experienced or as perceived by ears and eyes and what can be perceived by the ears being in the form of an audio recording and though the recording device is the same, it can also be one which could be perceived both by ears and eyes and with advancement, in science and technology and with improvement in the techniques of reproduction and improvement in the storage of visual experiences or of hearing, which as of now more popularity through the covenant disk form and as light and sound waves passes into a reproductionable form, in the sense that the reproduction is in such form that it can be perceived by human sensory organs, when exposed in certain media or devices and it is the claim that., such reproduction can be as near as is possible to the original experience. 13. Evidence Act recognises reproduction of the original in many forms, particularly such as, certified copies issued by the authorised or competent; persons of the originals to know the contents of the originals and the like. 14. Ultimately, when the court is permitting the receipt of evidence, while full opportunity and scope should be given to the parties to produce such evidence which the parties deems fit and also feel that it is relevant to place before the Court and what is placed before the court by the other party is one which is true to the event and not a distortion or even a fabrication of an event. To this extent, the Presiding Judge, who is permitting evidence on behalf of parties has to be on guard and ensure that the materials sought to be placed before the Court by way of evidence by the parties is something which commends the acceptance of the Judge, being a material supportive of the case pleaded by the party. 15. In this background, even the conventional concept of one single sale deed being described as one document may not necessarily hold water and more so when it comes to. the marking of a CD which one or the other party claims to be the recording of an event that had occurred earlier through an electronic device. Ultimately, the test is as to whether what is sought to be placed before the Court, in the form of evidence is to support the case pleaded by a party and countered by the other side for the reliance in the context of the case and what the parties are required to prove having regard to the issue that have arisen from the pleadings of the parties. 16. What extent of evidence a party wants to place before the Court, is a matter left to the party and the court can neither compel the party to produce any material before the court nor can come in the way of the party in placing such material before the court. 17. In this back ground, it is not possible to accept the objection on behalf of the Respondent as urged by Sri Shashikantha that the entire series of 14 CD's alone can constitute one document itself is fallacious and the objection does not hold water in the wake of language of the Section 39 of the Indian Evidence Act which in fact expressly enable even part of a longer conversation or statement or part of an isolated document; being produced by way of evidence and if a harmonious construction of the words 'document' and 'evidence' and Section 39 is resorted to, it inevitably leads to the inference that; marking of only the identified/selected 4 CDs from amongst, the 14 CDs cannot be prevented. 18. Though Mr. Shashikantha, learned Counsel for Respondent has also drawn my attention to Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as part of the objection to the marking of only 4 CDs by way of evidence. 18. Though Mr. Shashikantha, learned Counsel for Respondent has also drawn my attention to Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as part of the objection to the marking of only 4 CDs by way of evidence. I do not find any relevance or any principle of law adumbrated in Section 76, in the context of the present issue as answered above being in any manner affected by Section 76 of the Indian Evidence as this statutory provision is only an enabling provision in favour of a competent revenue officer, to Issue a certified copy of a document which is officially in his custody. 19. Permitting the Petitioner to mark the four CDs as by way of documentary evidence is also in consonance with the purpose and object of conducting the trial that takes place before the Court: for the reconstruction of the real and giving full opportunity to the parties to prove their case and therefore, the objection raised by Sri Shashikantha is overruled and the Petitioner is permitted to mark the 4 CD's identified by the Petitioner from amongst the 14 CDs as documentary evidence in this petition.