The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 875 OF 2024 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 10/08/2022 Passed in O.S.No.493 of 2022 on the file of the XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: K.E. John Wesley,, S/o. E. Enoch, Age. 66 years, Occ. Retd Employee, R/o Flat No. 102, Venkata Sai Nest Appts, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad 500028 AND B.N. Hosea,, S/o. Nathaniel, Aged years, Occ. R/o. R,V. Enclave Apartments, Near Seetharama Kalyana Mandapam, Near Post Office, Chaithanyapuri, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad ...Petitioner ... Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings in O.S. No.493 of 2022 by Ld. XVll Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T BALA MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: _ _ _ _ The Court made the following: OROER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISIII,]TTY CIVIL REVISION PEI]T ION No.875 of 2()llt ORDER: This Civit Rcvision Petition is tiled assailing llr. Jockct order. dated 10.08.2023, passed by thc XVll Senior Civil Jrttl::e. City Civil Court. Hydcrabad, in OS.No.493 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri l-.llala Mohan Reddy. Icarned counsel lirr thc pctitioner. No represcntation on behall- ol respondent, despite sc.r ce ol' noticc' thcrelnre, the rratter is being disposed olbasing on the rt .r ;rial availahlc on record.

3. Thc revision petitioner is the ptaintifl and the rt:sponclent is the dclendant in the suit. For conienicnce. hereitlaflcr, the 'arties tvill be rcli'rred to ils crraycd in the suit.

4. Tho succinct facts of tho case, shotn-olT unncc(':,sirr)' tletails, ar-r: that the plaintiff filed a suit vide OS.No.493 ol 2() ll lor awarding tlamages to a tune ol Rs.50,00,000/- against the dctcntl:rlrL in rcspect ol' delamatory statements madc against him. The (ltl( lldant enterod appearancc and filcd his written statcmcnt dcnying the pl:1in1 averments. 'l hc trial commcnocd. PWI filed his chie f--affldavit in Iicu of his exarnination and rvhcn the matter was coming up lor 1t rt icr urarking of documents, at that stage, the plaintifl' flled a Mento rc.ltre stinq the trial Court to mark a C.D stating that thc contents ol Pres:r rneet circulated 2 LNA, J CRP.No.E75 oJ2024 through WhatsApp are recorded in the said C.D and that, along with the said Memo, the plaintiff filed a Certificate under Section 658 of Indian Evidence Act. 5 The triar court. vide rrnpugncd docket-order, rejected the said request by observing that the plaintiff is not competent to issue certificate under Section 658 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the a eged Whatsapp video stated to have been circulatcd and also to take it into C.D and therefore, the C.D sought to be marked is inadmissible in evidence. Aggrievcd by the said ordcr, the prcsent Revision is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioncr/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court erred in observing that the plaintilf is not a competent person to issue a Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Ao, when the said Section clearly stipulates that Certificate can be given by any person who is a responsible official position in relation to operation oldevice. Hc further submitted that the WhatsApp video clips were received by thc petitioner on his mobile phone, the said conteuts rvere downloadcd in computer system and copied in CD He fufther submitted that the video clips in the CD are crucial to prove the case of the plaintilf and are admissible in evidence. [.earned counscl further submittcd that the plaintiff being owner of the m6Sils 4.,.: .rce ts competent lo issue Certificate under Section 65_8 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence. Prayed to allow this Revision. I I i ::',r;'i'&, - --. , _) t.\.1 J ('P.l' iio 8ii a[ )0)1

7. ln support of his contentions, learned counsel .br the petitioner rclicd upon thc {irllorving .judgrnents of the Hon'ble Sr:pr.:tnc CourL:- (i) Arjun Pontlirroo Kltotkar vs. Ktilash Kushtnrito (iorantyolt (ii) Anvar P. V. vs. P. K, Basheer2

8. Ihis Court has bestor.r cd rts attcntion to thc sLrhrrissious ad\ anced b1 learned counscl lor the revision petitioner/p lainL i l l and perused the aforesaid judgmcnts rolicd upon by the Leamed coulr-\(rl br thc plaintifl 9 ln.,lrjun Pondilroo Khotkor's case lcitcd supur), the Ilon'ble Supreure Court has detailed as to the persons vvho ar!'c(rmpeLenL Lo give a Celtificate under Section 658 ol Indian Evidcncc Act. For betl-er undcrstanding, thc sarnc is extracted as hereunder. - '' lt mtty also be seen that the person who gilr,., t/zlr certi/icale c:un be ary.-one oLtL of several persons' t h.o occupl' ct 'responsibLe ol/icial po.sition'in relation to tltc )peralion of the rclcwtttt device. as aLso the person u,ho ntol o;htrt ise be in the 'mon.egenlenl o.f relevonl activities' spoken o-l' ."t .Sub-.yection. (4) of Section 658. Considering that such cerli,/i::ttte rtruy qlyl fis given long after the electronic record lr.s at:tuollt, heen produt'et{ b), lhe comp er, Section 658(4) nurtr.t; il clear th.at il is st(Jic'ient thut such person gives lhe requitire ccrtificdte to the "best oJ his knowledge and belief' '(2020) 7 scc l t 1:ora; ro scc.r;t 4 l.N;1, J CRI' No E75 o1202,1

10. 'I'he Ilon'ble Suprcrne Court in P.V.Anvar,s casc (citcd supra) held as fbllows:- "The proof o.[ electonic record is a special prot'i.sion introduced by the lnfornution Tccltnologl Act, )000, amencling variotts provi.sions under the Evk{ence Act. An electronic record bv way oJ secondar), eridence shctll not be admitted in evidence unles.s the requiremenls under Section 65-B are satisrted. " ln the instant case. thc plaintiff sought to rcccive a CD lll which the oontents of a Press nreet. r.vhcleir.r talse and lrir.olous allegations werc rnade against hint b,r. the dcl'cndant. tantishing his imagc and reputation in the society downloadcd from Whatsapp r.vcrc copied. Thc plaintiff, along with his allldavit filod in lieu ol chicl'- exanrination. has filed lour documenrs. rvhich includes CD ol r,ideo clipping. The plaintifls case regardin_q the defarnation causcd to hin.r hi, thc delendant is based on the video clipping ri'hich rl'cnt riral through Whatsapp

12. 'l'o prove his case, the plaintiff sought to mark a CD in rihich the video clipping defaming his rcputation by tho defendant was copied. The plaintiff is said to have copied the said vidco clipping fbrwarded to his mobile. Thus. obviously. the plaintitf is responsible persofiri'?ctation to the operation of his mobilc, as envisagcd under clause (c) ofsub-section-4 of Section 65-B olthe lndian I]videncc Act . 1 I I I I I ) l.\ 1. J ( RP )\a E)t ol )024 Further. thc IJon'blc Suprcmo Court in Ariun Pann'irrao Kholkur's case (cited supra), also made it clear that under Scction 55-B(4) ol the lndian t:i'idcnce nct. it is sulllcient that a person, u lrt: is rcsponsibic or other'"r isc bc in Lhc lnanagclneut ol- relcvant aclir .ics. gives tllc requisite Ccrtillcatc to thc ''bcst olhis know,ledge ancl rclicl' tl. t,tndisputcdly. in the present case. the plaintifll' b,:ing lhe o"r'ncr of the mobile device is custodian and responsiblc lor ctreration ol his nrobilc dericc. l'he plaintillhas tiled Cr:rtificatc und..rr Sicction 65-[] of the Indian I:r idcnce Aot. stating thaL the said Certifie atc is truc to thc bcst ol his knou ledge. inlomation and belief. In suclt brtoktlrop, in the tight ol thc -iudgrncnt of rhe Hon'blc Supreme in Arjun "'turt Portditrao Khotktr's casc (cited supra), he is competc rt to issuc such a I I Ce(iflcate

14. l-ufihcrrnorc, the CD sought to be received b',,'tlrc plaintrlf being an clectronic record and is accornpanied by a Ccrtilicate issur:d by the plaintifl- unclcr Section 65-B ol the Irrdian Evidence ,\ct. as per thc judgnrerrL of rhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.Anvrr's case (cited supra), the sarnc is adtnissible as sccondart' eviderrcc I5. For thc lbrgoing reasons and in the light of larr' lrLid dou'n by the Hon'ble Suprerne Cour1 as stated supra, this Court is of considered opining that thc trial Court erred in rejccting to recr:ive the CD and hcnce. the impugrred docket order is liable to be set as d.) 6 Ll\'A J CRP yo 815 ol 2021 ;,:r' n

16. Accordingly. this revision is allowcd and the intpugned docker order dated 10.08.2023, passed by tho XVII Scnior Cir..il Judge. Ciry Cir il Cour1, rderabad. in OS.No..l93 ol 1022 is 5er asidc and conscqtlently. rclevant video clippings in Whatsapp. i.vhich rvsrc copicd in the CI). shall bc received. sub.iect to adnrissibilirr. _ , l7. As a sequcl. thc rniscellancous applications pendrng. ifanr. shall stand closed. No costs SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER To, 1 The XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri T Bala Mohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ABK/PSI, w HIGH COURT DATED: 2610812025 ORDER CRP.No.875 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS : -. i'.,, it- ---.. ). '1. 1- ,).<, .) ?:t stP 2U5 '/ .Sl,. T alt\L J> a6fl Yr-<-,q 6iq"'