ORDER
S. Ashok Kumar, J.
1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 8 Rule 2, CPC to accept certain documents, he has come forward to this Court by way of this revision.
2. The petitioners/defendants have filed the Interpretation Application No: 19157 of 2006 in O.S. No. 2391 of 2005 before the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to receive (1) The cheque bearing No. 650220, drawn on ICICI Bank, (2) Notices exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendants, (3) Visiting card of the plaintiff, (4) Original complaint copy in CC. No: 7957/04, (5) Original video cassette containing the statement of the plaintiff, and (6) Copy of the complaint filed before CCB, Egmore, against the plaintiff for forgery and the news published in the paper regarding the complaint in CCB as additional documents. The suit has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,37,600/- with interest at 12% p.a. Pending the same, he has filed the said LA., to receive the above said documents on the ground that the suit has been filed on the basis of the fabricated promissory note not issued by the defendants. It is also averred by them that at the time of filing the written statement, such documents were not available to them. The respondents/plaintiffs opposed the said application contending that there is no pleading with regard to the documents sought to be produced and if the documents are received the plaintiff will not have opportunity to deny the contents of the documents apart from the fact that after commencement of trial the defendants have no right to produce any evidence. The learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, on a consideration of the averments and the submissions of the learned Counsel appeared on either side, partly allowed the I.A., to receive the documents, except Document No. 8, which is the Video Cassette as according to him, the same contains the compromise talks between the parties and since the compromise did not fructify, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioners/defendants.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Trial Court has gone into the veracity of Ex. A.8, Video Cassette, allegedly containing the compromise talks and gave a finding regarding the legacy of the same even before marking of the same as an Exhibit and without going through the contents of the same. There is no bar in the Evidence Act prohibiting marking of the contents in the form of electronic version subject to their authenticity which could be testified by so many scientific methods by the laboratories. The judgment reported in AIR Orissa page 136, relied upon by the Trial Court for not receiving the Document No. 8 may not be applicable to the facts of the present case, since the judgment relates to admissions which are general in nature in matters of compromise regarding money claims and the same is inadmissible in evidence subsequently on the failure of such compromise. But the case on hand is on entirely a different footing. In the present case, according to the defendants, the video cassette contains the categorical admission of the plaintiff regarding tampering of the documents and the fraud played by him on the Court. Therefore the Trial Court has to mark the said video cassette in evidence as an Exhibit and decide as to the admission of the contents of the same, on merits and according to law, after giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiffs to challenge the same.
With the above observation, this CRP is disposed of. Consequently, connected MP is closed. No costs.