Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM.) No. 817/2022
CREANDO ASSOCIATE PVT. LTD. VS. RIDDHI SIDDHI
CHOCOLATES & ANR.
26.09.2022
Present: Ms. Mahek Dogra, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.
Heard. Perused.
Requisite Court fees not filed with the suit.
Requisite Court fees be deposited and Court fees
certificate be filed within two working days in the Court.
Application under Section 148 CPC stands disposed.
Perusal of record reveals that the filed list of
documents with the plaint is not in accordance with Order XI
Rule 1 (2) of The Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to
commercial dispute of a specified value since it does not specify
whether the documents in the power, possession, control or
custody of the plaintiff are originals, office copies or photo
copies nor said list sets out in brief, details of parties to each
document, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of
custody of each document.
Order XI Rule 6 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (in short CPC) mandates the declaration on oath to be filed
by a party specifying (a) the parties to such Electronic Record;
(b) the manner in which such electronic record was produced and
by whom; (c) the dates and time of preparation or storage or
issuance or receipt of each such electronic record; (d) the source
of such electronic record and date and time when the electronic
record was printed; (e) in case of e-mail ids, details of
ownership, custody and access to such e-mail ids; (f) in case of
documents stored on a computer or computer resource
Contd:-
-- 1 of 2 --
CS (COMM.) No. 817/2022
CREANDO ASSOCIATE PVT. LTD. VS. RIDDHI SIDDHI
CHOCOLATES & ANR.
:2:
(including on external servers or cloud), details of ownership,
custody and access to such data on the computer or computer
resource; (g) deponent's knowledge of contents and correctness
of contents; (h) whether the computer or computer resource used
for preparing or receiving or storing such document or data was
functioning properly or in case of malfunction that such
malfunction did not affect the contents of the document stored;
(i) that the printout or copy furnished was taken from the original
computer or computer resource.
Majority of above said information required to be
specified in terms of Order XI Rule 6 (3) of CPC elicited above,
is not even contained in the affidavit (certificate) of AR of
plaintiff under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which
only in vague terms is containing an endeavor to put forth of
compliance of conditions of Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence
Act.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff seeks adjournment for
taking appropriate steps and moving appropriate application.
Fixed 13.10.2022 for consideration.
This order be uploaded on the website of the Delhi
District Courts.
GURVINDER PAL SINGH
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
26.09.2022(vkp)
-- 2 of 2 --