JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial court dated 11.3.2000, whereby the prayer made by the plaintiff-petitioner for getting a certified copy of the statement of Rajinder Gupta, which was tape recorded in the Court as also permission for getting photographs of the signatures of the respondent-defendant was declined.
2. As per facts of the case (which arose out of a suit for specific performance), during the cross examination of PW Rajinder Gupta, it came out that his conversation in which he had admitted that the agreement to sell had in fact not been executed had been tape recorded and the tape had been produced in Court in evidence and was lying in a sealed cover therein. Rajinder Gupta thereafter appeared in Court as a witness on an application made by the defendant and his statement was also tape recorded in Court. It is the case of the petitioner that a certificate copy of the tape recording of Rajinder Gupta’s statement made in Court ought to be supplied to him, so that his voice could be compared with the voice in the tape recording which had been produced in Court and was lying sealed therein. The trial Court vide impugned order observed that there was no procedure/provision law whereby a certified copy of a tape recording could be supplied to the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the application on that basis. It is against this order the present petition has been filed.
3. I have gone through the reasons given by the trial Court for declining the application and find them to be misplaced. Admittedly, the tape recording which is sought by the petitioner-plaintiff is in the voice of Rajinder Gupta and was recorded in Court. There can, therefore, be no doubt with regard to its authenticity. It is equally true that the defendants have produced in evidence a tape of a recorded conversation stated to be that of Rajinder Gupta and some other person, which is lying sealed in Court. The authenticity of the aforesaid tape recording has been doubted by the petitioner and he seeks to compare that voice with the admitted voice of Rajinder Gupta recorded in Court. In this situation, it is only fair that a copy of the tape of the statement recorded in Court should be supplied to all the parties concerned. Although it does appear that there is on specific provision in law as to how this exercise is to be carried out but it is accordingly left open to the trial court to devise a means for doing so. For this purpose many electronic techniques are now available and which can be utilised for the purpose without damaging the original.
4. I have also considered the second part of the argument with regard to the permission for taking the photographs. It is clear from the impugned order that the petitioner
had been given several opportunities earlier to take the photographs but he had failed to
do so. No further time can, therefore, be granted for this purpose. On this aspect the application is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on
15.9.2003. Dasti.