AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed allowing I.A. No. 7 filed u/s 151 of CPC thereby granting permission to the 2nd defendant to play the DVD produced in the case.
The petitioner is the 11th plaintiff in the Trial Court The plaintiffs have sought for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs'' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit road and further restraining the defendants from putting up compound wall on either side of the suit road.
It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the construction of the compound wall taken up by the 2nd defendant was likely to cause obstruction to their free access to the apartments. The defendants have denied the case of the plaintiffs and have produced several photographs to show that the assertion made by the plaintiffs was not correct They have also produced a DVD containing video graph of the apartments and the adjoining area to substantiate their contention that the efforts made by the defendants to put up compound wall and either construction did not in any manner affect the free access to the various apartments. The defendants while producing the DVD have contended that the same is necessary and essential for the purpose of appreciating the controversy in question. For better appreciation of the case, the trial Court has allowed this application seeking permission to play the DVD. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff petitioner herein submits that the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the evidence that is sought to be placed on record through DVD. He further contends by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikhao Shivaji Kokate 2010 AIR SCW 1369 that due to the fast development in the electronic techniques, the tapes/cassettes are more susceptible to tampering and alterations by transposition, excision etc., which may be difficult to detect and therefore such evidence has to be received with caution, Be therefore contends that the observations made by the Apex Court in Paragraph 20 is referred to impress upon the Court that permission granted by the trial Court at the stage of consideration of I.A. No. 1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, is not legal and valid.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on careful perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this case to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. The order passed does not suffer from error of jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of the record. It is always open to the plaintiffs to produce such rebuttal materials even in the form of their own video graph of the area to give clear picture before the trial Court, if the plaintiffs are of the view that the video graph given is a tampered or distorted one. The ultimate aim and attempt is to ascertain the truth to find out the prima facie case so as to enable the Court below to consider the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. The defendants have sought to place the DVD before the Court below apart from placing several photographs.
The order passed permitting to play the DVD is to appreciate the contentions urged by the parties in a better way and cannot be termed as illegal or without jurisdiction. Hence, no interference is called for in this writ petition.
The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of the aforementioned judgment will no doubt come to the help of the petitioner, if the order to be passed goes against him and if he takes up the contention that such tampering or distortion had taken place in the process.
Subject to the above observations and keeping open all the contentions raised by the petitioner, thus writ petition is dismissed.