It is stated that the Compact Disc companytaining the recording of the said companyversations was produced along with the said applications.
On the said averments, the respondent sought specific performance of the agreement of sale or alternatively refund of the advance of Rs.160,000/ with interest at 12 per annum from 20.12.2006.
The appellant wanted to cross examine the witnesses with reference to the admissions made during some companyversations, recorded on a companypact disc an electronic record .
The appellant therefore companytended that the respondent plaintiff was number entitled to specific performance.
The appellant resisted the suit.
IA No.217/2009 was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code for recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further cross examination.
In the affidavits filed in support of the said applications, the appellant alleged that during companyversations among the appellant, respondent and three others Ponnuswamy alias Krishnamoorthy, Shiva and Saravana Kumar , the respondent plaintiff admitted that Eswaramoorthy PW2 had lent the amount shown as advance in the agreement of sale to the appellant through the respondent and that during another companyversation among the appellant, Eswaramoorthy and Shiva, the said Eswaramoorthy PW2 also admitted that he had lent the amount mentioned in the agreement of sale advance through the respondent that both companyversations were recorded by a digital voice recorder that companyversation with plaintiff was recorded on 27.10.2008 between 8 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. and the companyversation with Eswaramoorthy was recorded on 31.10.2008 between 7 to 9.50 p.m. and that it was therefore necessary to reopen the evidence and further cross examine PW1 and PW2 with reference to the said admissions electronically recorded evidence to demonstrate that the agreement of sale was only a security for the loan.
The said order is challenged in these appeals by special leave.
The written statement was filed on 12.9.2007.
He denied any such companyversations or admissions.
The first application was filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code for short with a prayer to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further cross examination of Plaintiff PW1 and the attesting witness Eswaramoorthy PW2 .
Thereafter issues were framed and both parties led evidence.
The respondent herein has filed a suit for specific performance OS No.48/2007 alleging that the appellant defendant entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 20.12.2006 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to him, for a companysideration of Rs.240,000/ that he had paid Rs.160,000/ as advance on the date of agreement that the appellant agreed to execute a sale deed by receiving the balance of Rs.80,000/ within three months from the date of sale that he was ready and willing to get the sale companypleted and issued a numberice dated 16.3.2007 calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed on 20.3.2007 and that he went to the Sub Registrars office on 20.3.2007 and waited, but the appellant did number turn up to execute the sale deed.
He companytended that the application was a dilatory tactic to drag on the proceedings.
On 11.11.2008 when the arguments were in progress, the appellant filed two applications numbered as IA No.216/2009 and IA No.217/2009 .
He alleged that the recordings were created by the appellant with the help of mimicry specialists and Ponnuswamy, Shiva and Saravana Kumar.
He alleged that he was in need of Rs.150,000 and approached the respondent who was a money lender, with a request to advance him the said amount as a loan that the respondent agreed to advance the loan but insisted that the appellant should execute and register a sale agreement in his favour and also execute some blank papers and blank stamp papers, as security for the repayment of the amount to be advanced and that trusting the respondent, the appellant executed the said documents with the understanding that the said documents will be the security for the repayment of the loan with interest.
The revision petitions filed by the appellant challenging the said orders, were dismissed by the High Court by a companymon order dated 7.4.2010, reiterating the reasons assigned by the trial companyrt.
The suit was filed on 26.3.2007.
V.RAVEENDRAN,J. Leave granted.
The respondent resisted the said applications.
