Interim Order 23

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 6
CNR No.: DLCT01-006565-2024
CS (COMM) 540/24
M/S GREATEX SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD.
Vs.
M/S DAMY ROYAL STYLE PVT. LTD.
08.10.2026
Present: Shri Subhash Chandra, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Shri Deepanshu Joshi, Ld. counsel for defendants.
Reply to the application under Section 151 CPC of the
defendants has been filed by the plaintiff. Copy supplied.
Submissions heard.
Put up in post lunch session for orders on the application.
(Sunil Chaudhary)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-04
(Central District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
At 2:06 PM
Present: None.
As per case record, application under Order XVIII Rule 17
CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants seeking
permission to file certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act in respect of email/Debit Notes dated 31.07.2022 and 27.11.2022
and to recall witness in respect of said certificate was dismissed vide
order dated 17.09.2026.
The present application has been filed by the defendants for
the same relief. It is the contention of the defendants that the present
application is being filed in view of fresh and corrected certificate
which has been prepared to address the formal/statutory deficiencies
in the earlier certificate, including the particulars and declarations
required under the applicable law.
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
It is further contended that the present application is not
intended to conceal, by-pass or seek a review of the order dated
17.09.2026 but seeks leave to tender the corrected certificate and
request the court to exercise its procedural discretion in the interest of
fair adjudication. It is further contended that the electronic records in
question relate to the existing defence of the defendants and are not
sought to introduce a new plea or a new transaction. It is contended
that defendants only seek to ensure that the electronic records already
relied upon are accompanied by a certificate complying with the
applicable statutory requirement, subject to proof, admissibility and
plaintiff’s rights to contest the same.
It is contended that in view of the law held in case of
Arjun
Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1,
the certificate in support of electronic evidence is mandatory and that
as per case law,
Ram Kishan v. M/s Emaar MGF Constructions Pvt.
Ltd., CM(M) 197/2019, non-filing of a certificate under Section 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act is a curable defect.
On the other hand, the application is opposed with the
contention that second application with the same prayer is not
maintainable and that the certificate under Section 65B has already
been filed and is relied upon as Ex. DW1/9. It is contended that the
intention of the defendants is only to delay the proceedings of the
present suit. It is further contended that the application has been filed
only with intention to correct the answer given by the witness during
his cross-examination. It is further contended that by way of present
application, the evidence is sought to be reopened and to allow the
defendants to fill up the lacuna in the case.
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
The application filed seeking similar relief was dismissed by
the Court vide order dated 17.09.2026 and no new ground is shown by
way of the present application to take a different opinion now. The
defendants have already filed the requisite certificate which is relied
upon as Ex.DW1/9. It is not the case of the defendants as pleaded in
the application that the said certificate is not filed by them and is not
being relied upon.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
application is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Put up on 13.11.2026 for final arguments.
(Sunil Chaudhary)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-04
(Central District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
08.10.2026
-- 3 of 3 --