Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 918 (KAR)

B. Uma Maheswari v. A. Rajaganesh

2013-08-13

A.S.BOPANNA

body2013
ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J.—The respondent has entered caveat. Hence, the learned Counsel for both the parties are heard. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 16-7-2013 passed on I.A. Nos. 14 to 17 in M.C. No. 1262 of 2008. The respondent herein has instituted the petition in M.C. No. 1262 of 2008. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent filed the applications in I.A. Nos. 14 to 17 seeking to recall the order dated 20-10-2010 and permit him to lead further evidence. The application in I.A. No. 16 was filed seeking to produce additional document i.e., conversation between the family members and I.A. No. 17 was filed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to take on record the document i.e., the conversation between the family members. The petitioner herein who is the respondent in the said proceeding had objected to the said application. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has allowed the applications. The petitioner who claims to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order would contend that though at the first instance a Compact Disk (CD) had been produced, the same is presently not available in its original form. The respondent while now seeking to reopen the evidence has sought to produce certain transcription and translation said to be made from the original CD. The learned Counsel contends that at this juncture, if such document is allowed to be produced and marked in evidence, the case of the petitioner herein would be prejudiced inasmuch as the same cannot be accepted to be the true transcription or the translation of the original contents of the CD. In that regard, it is contended that even if the Court below was justified in allowing further evidence, but on this aspect of the matter, the production and marking of the document should have been disallowed. It is therefore contended that the order is not justified. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the Court below in fact has also kept this aspect in mind and has allowed the respondent herein to produce and mark the same subject to the provisions of law and therefore the petitioner cannot have grievance at this juncture. It is therefore contended that the order is not justified. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the Court below in fact has also kept this aspect in mind and has allowed the respondent herein to produce and mark the same subject to the provisions of law and therefore the petitioner cannot have grievance at this juncture. It is contended that the Court below after considering all aspects has arrived at such conclusion. Therefore, the order does not call for interference. 4. In the light of the rival contentions, a perusal of the order would indicate that the tenor of the order passed by the Court below itself is clear that the Court below has at this juncture only allowed the respondent herein to produce the document and has left the liberty to the Counsel for the petitioner herein to object to the marking of the said document and putforth all legal contentions with regard to proof of the same. In that view, I am of the opinion that all that is required to be done at this stage is to further clarify this aspect of the matter and to indicate that the documents which have been produced by the respondent herein though marked in evidence would be subject to proof of authenticity and proof of the contents as well as the admissibility of the documents as contemplated under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, more particularly Section 65B therein. These aspects of the matter would be considered by the Court below while evaluating the evidence notwithstanding the fact that the documents are allowed to be produced and marked in evidence. All contentions in that regard are left open to be urged before the Court below. Hence, at this juncture except for the said clarification, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. With the said clarification, the petition stands disposed of.