Punam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Pratap Issardas Bhatia & Ors.
In the High Court of Bombay
Suit 1894/2010
Before Justice N.J. Jamadar
Decided on January 27, 2022

Relevancy of the Case: Admissibility of digital evidence to establish an agreement of sale

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 13, 32(7), 65B)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• One Mushtaf Rauf claimed that the late Begum Rauf had signed and handwritten a copy of the agreement for sale.
• The sixth defendant submitted various photographs and negatives as evidence for the agreement of sale. Further, he also submitted a pen drive as digital evidence. However, he did not submit the chip and laptop.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the witness did not submit the memory chip, so the court should not mark the evidence.

Opinion of the Bench

• The plaintiff did not claim the documents to be original. Therefore, the court cannot mark these documents as evidence.
• Further examination of the documents and evidence is required.

Final Decision

• The court adjourned the matter to a later date.