Writ Petition No. 34601 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22928 WP No. 34601 of 2018 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 34601 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.S.RANGANATH, S/O SRI K.V.SOORAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.C-74, 36TH CROSS, SANATHANA KALAKSHETHRA, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 011. (BY SRI B.N.ANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:
Legal Reasoning
A.L. BELUR, S/O SRI L.A.BELUR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT A-60/1222, AZAD NAGAR, VEERA DESAI ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 053. AND ALSO HAVING ADDRESS AT NO.1400, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. (BY SRI H.MUJTABA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.6191/2011 ON - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22928 WP No. 34601 of 2018 HC-KAR I.A.NO.XI UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1A OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following relief: "Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing (a). The order dated 20.07.2018 passed by The Court of V Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore in O.S.No.6191/2011 on I.A.No.XI under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC (vide Annexure-F). (b). Allow I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.6191/2011 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (c). Grant Such other writ or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." 2. Heard Sri B.N.Anjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.6191/2011 filed an application for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22928 WP No. 34601 of 2018 HC-KAR production of extract of CD content containing the conversation between the plaintiff's father and the defendant, the defendant and one Srinivas, who is the witness to the agreement of sale, original CD containing the conversation between Sri Nagaraj and the defendant, the extracts containing in the aforesaid CD and certificate issued by the Clause 4 Evidence Forensic Lab as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application with an incorrect findings. 3. It is submitted that the transaction between the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit and the respondent-plaintiff, was a money transaction, which can be easily proved from the conversation between the parties as found in the CD. Hence, those documents are necessary to decide the dispute between the parties. 4. It is submitted that the Trial Court incorrectly came to the conclusion that recording of such telephonic - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22928 WP No. 34601 of 2018 HC-KAR conversation between the parties is tapping the telephone, which is factually incorrect and the certificate for downloading such information is already produced before the Court and the same is admissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by this application. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent defends the order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court by a well-reasoned order has held that the alleged recording of the conversation between the father of the plaintiff and the petitioner- defendant is a violation of the privacy right of the respondent-plaintiff, which is impermissible and such recording of the conversation is without any authority, which amounts to tapping of the phone of the respondent- plaintiff, which has been rightly recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the application. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22928 WP No. 34601 of 2018 HC-KAR 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 7. The respondent filed O.S.No.6191/2011 seeking the judgment and decree against the petitioner herein for performance of the contract in terms of the agreement of sale dated 21.06.2007 and consequential prayer. The said suit is defended by the petitioner-defendant by filing written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner- defendant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to produce the extract of the CD content containing the alleged conversation between the plaintiff's father and the defendant, the defendant's conversation with one Srinivas, who is the witness to the sale agreement, the original CD containing the conversation, the extract of the content of the aforesaid CD and the certificate alleged to have been - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22928 WP No. 34601 of 2018 HC-KAR issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The said application is accompanied by an affidavit of the petitioner-defendant. On perusal of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit, it does not indicate the reason for production of those documents before the Court. It says there is a conversation between the petitioner-defendant and the respondent's-plaintiff's father and the witness to the agreement. However, what is the conversation between them is not forthcoming in the said affidavit filed before the Trial Court. 8. The Trial Court considering the nature of the documents sought to be produced, has rightly recorded the findings that the recording of the conversation of the respondent-plaintiff without his consent or with the permission of the Competent Authority, it invades the right of the privacy of the respondent-plaintiff and rejected the same on the ground that it is inadmissible in law. Hence, I do not find any error in the said findings. The Trial Court has further recorded the findings that the conversation - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22928 WP No. 34601 of 2018 HC-KAR alleged to contain nothing, but a telephone tapping of the respondent-plaintiff. 9. In my considered view, the said findings of the Trial Court is strictly in consonance with the law and do not call for any interference. The Trial Court by well- reasoned order, has come to the conclusion that such a document cannot be allowed to be brought on record in the suit and rejected the application. I do not find any error in the said findings calling for interference in the present petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31