CRP/3259/2024 of RAVU VENKATA SATYA SITA JYOTHI SWAROOPA Vs Dr KOTAGIRI BUTCHAIAH RAYANAM on 5 March 2026

1. RAVU VENKATA S SURYA RAO, REP VENKATA SATYA M KRISHNA RAO, AG R/O. D.NO. 9-7-50 KAKINADA, KAKIN DISTRICT).

1. DR KOTAGIRI BUT RAO, AGED ABOU R/O. H.NO. 10-6-13 POINT, SESHAD GODAVARI DISTRI

2. VASAKARLA ANUS AGED ABOUT 35 Y NO. 13, SCHO JANGAREDDY GUD Petition under Articl circumstances stated in E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALA EVISION PETITION NO: 3259/2024 SATYA SITA JYOTHI SWAROOPA, PRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDE MADHAVA SURYA RAO, S/O VENK GED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. SELF 0, MOHAMMAD ALI STREET, GAN ADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAS .. AND TCHAIAH RAYANAM, S/O GANGAD UT 35 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR BY P 384, REVENUE WARD NO. 13, SCH DRI NAGAR, JANGAREDDY GU ICT. SHA, C/O DR.KOTAGIRI BUTCHAIA YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 10-6-1384,, REV OL ENDING POINT, SESHAD DEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESP e 227 of the Constitution of India, pra the grounds filed herein, the High ESH

APATI D/O. SESHA R CHELIKANI KATA MURALI F EMPLOYED, NDHI NAGAR, T GODAVARI ..PETITIONER DHARA RAMA PROFESSION, OOL ENDING DEM, WEST AH RAYANAM, VENUE WARD DRI NAGAR, PONDENT(S): aying that in the Court may be pleased to SET ASIDE the order dated 14.08.2024 made in I.A.No.124 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.326 of 2022 is pending on the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada District (erstwhile East Godavari District) by allowing the Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the General Power of Attorney dated: 09.12.2024 to present the above Civil Revision Petition on behalf of the Petitioner and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.326 of 2022 pending on the file of The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada District (erstwhile East Godavari District), pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. PARTY IN PERSON

The Court made the following order:

Assailing the correctness and the legality of the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.124 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.326 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada (Erstwhile East Godavari District), the present Civil Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The facts of the case that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition is as follows:

i) The petitioner herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in H.M.O.P.No.326 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada. ii) The petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P.No.326 of 2022 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 23.05.2021 which took place between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.124 of 2024, under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to receive the Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act stating that she has filed certain documents which are electronic records and require a Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and that in order to mark the said documents on her behalf, the said certificate is highly necessary to prove her contention, and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the said certificate is received by the Court.

iii) The said application was opposed by the respondents by filing counter inter alia contending that the evidence produced by the petitioner against respondent No.1 is an Electronic evidence and that the certificate must furnish the particulars of device used in the production of record and that the certificate must comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and that without fulfilling the said conditions, the petitioner filed the Certificate, as such, the same cannot be received.

iv) After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that Section 65-B mandates a certificate from authorized person and that a self-certificate is not permissible for adducing evidence and therefore, the certificate filed by the petitioner cannot be used to mark the electronic record. It was further observed that the certificate produced by the petitioner does not come within the purview of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and that the certificate itself is not valid, thus no purpose would be served in receiving the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Kotagiri Butchaiah Rayanam, party-in-person (respondent No.1).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed before the Court below submitted that it is mandatory on the part of respondent No.1 to furnish the certificate. He further contended that the trial court did not properly considered the interlocutory application in the light of the pleadings in the Original Petition. He further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there is an illegal relationship between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 which cannot be proved by oral and direct evidence and it can be established through their conversations. Hence, prayed to allow the Application. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh1

6. On the other hand, respondent No.1 appearing as party-in-person, contended that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application after duly considering the authenticity of the document relied upon by the petitioner. He further contended that it is not mandatory on the part of the respondents to furnish a certificate when the documents do not belong to respondent No.1. He further contended that serious prejudice would be caused to respondent No.1, if unknown documents are attributed to him as his own and the Court below rightly dismissed the application, and that interference by this Court is not warranted. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

1 (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 801

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by both sides.

8. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was justified in refusing to receive the electronic records on the basis of the certificate tendered by the petitioner.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner intends to get mark conversation recorded in CD between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, some photographs, copy of the respondent No.1 e-mail ID, copy of the whatsapp between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. The certificate discloses that she has produced conversation recorded between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and the same was obtained from the mobile phone of respondent No.1. She has copied the e-mail chatting from the e-mail of respondent No.1.

10. Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act lays down a special provision for admissibility of electronic records and inter alia requires a certificate under Section 65-B (4) identifying the electronic record, describing the manner of its production, and giving particulars of the device involved, signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the device or its operations.

11. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has stated that electronic records are required to be marked to establish her case.

12. In Shafhi Mohammad’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “29. The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65- B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said sections can certainly be invoked. If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness, but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in the absence of certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65-B(4) is not always mandatory.”

In the present case, merely rejecting the certificate without affording the petitioner an opportunity to produce a proper certificate, amounts to a failure to apply the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

13. Moreover, in civil proceedings, particularly in matrimonial matters, Courts have the discretion to admit evidence that assists in resolving disputes on merits, subject to compliance with procedural safeguards.

14. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity to produce a certificate in compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Rejecting the electronic records, without affording opportunity, amounts to a denial of justice and hence, the same warrants interference by this Court.

15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kakinada in Interlocutory Application No.124 of 2024 in H.M.O.P No.326 of 2022 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to allow the petitioner to produce Section 65-B certificate as per law and thereafter, to decide the admissibility of the electronic records on merits and in accordance with law as per the decision of the Supreme Court (cited supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

06.03.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3259 of 2024

06.03.2026

MP