Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35611 (KAR)

SHRI.G. M. KUMAR v. SHRI. PRIYA KRISHNA

WP/200/2024 · 2025-07-04

S G Pandit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24267 WP No. 200 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 200 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. G. M. KUMAR, AGE 50 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR EAGLESIGHT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, A PRIVATE COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND EDITOR, BTV NEWS A DULY LICENSED KANNADA TELEVISION NEWS CHANNEL WITH ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO. 32/1-2, CRESENT TOWERS, CRESENT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. PRIYA KRISHNA S/O M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT "GOVARDHANA PRIYA" 2937/38/E, SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 040. 2. MR MAHENDRA ASHWIN DIRECTOR EAGLESIGHT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO. 32/1-2, CRESENT TOWERS CRESENT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24267 WP No. 200 of 2024 3. MR. BYCHANAHALLY MAHENDRA, DIRECTOR EAGLESIGHT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO. 32/1-2, CRESENT TOWERS CRESENT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. EAGLESIGHT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WITH ITS OFFICE AT - NO. 32/1-2 CRESENT TOWERS, CRESENT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 5. MR. B. RAGHAVENDRA, REPORTER AT BTV NEWS A DULY LICENSED KANNADA TELEVISION NEWS CHANNEL WITH ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO. 32/1-2, CRESENT TOWERS, CRESENT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARVIND PATIL B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. DHANANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS NO. 963/2015 ON THE FILE OF 3RD ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-3) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24267 WP No. 200 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Petitioner, defendant no.1 in O.S.No.963/15 on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 on I.A.2/23, an application filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC which is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Heard Sri. S.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Arvind Patil.B, learned counsel for caveator/respondent no.1. 3. I.A.2/23 was filed under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC to direct the plaintiff to produce a cloned copy of the contents of memory card containing the video and audio content in the same format obtained in the memory card and the transcript of human voices in it. The trial Court, on hearing the parties, under impugned order dated 28.11.2023, rejected I.A.2/23, against which, defendant no.1 is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24267 WP No. 200 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the trial Court is not justified in rejecting I.A.2/23 and further submits that, the trial Court failed to appreciate that, Ex.P.1 is not a complete document as it is a computer output which is susceptible and vulnerable for editing by copy paste method, until and unless Ex.P.1 is subjected to hashing and authentication process. 5. Ex.P.1- pen drive is marked and the suit is at the stage of cross examination of PW.2. 6. At paragraph 10 of the impugned order, it is seen that, the counsel for defendant no.1 has cross examined PW2 at length and he is yet to conclude the cross examination. It is submitted that, as on this date, the cross examination PW.2 is complete. When the pen drive is placed on record as Ex.P.1 and defendant no.1 has already concluded cross examination of PWs.1 and 2, the document as sought in I.A.2/23 may not be necessary at this stage. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner-defendant no.1 to raise the grounds raised herein, in case if - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24267 WP No. 200 of 2024 defendant no.1 files an appeal, if the suit goes against him. With the above said observations, writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK