1 wp 516.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 WRIT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025 Sadashiv Waman Bagal VERSUS Omprakash Waman Bagal And Another ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. P.P. Mandlik CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : July 16, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by 5th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Nanded, below Exhibit-43 in R.C.S. No.265 of 2020, by which prayer of the applicant/plaintiff to play videography of the suit property in open Court and consider same as evidence for decision on Temporary Injunction application has been declined. 2. Although, notice of this writ petition is served upon the respondents, none appears. 3. Mr. Mandlik, learned advocate appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner/plaintiff has placed on record pen-drive containing video-clip in respect of suit property and petitioner wants to play the same in open court to demonstrate his possession over the suit property. According to Mr. Mandlik, 2025:BHC-AUG:18858 2 wp 516.25.odt Court could not have refused to entertain the application, although, it would be within powers of the Court either to rely upon such evidence or not. In support of his submissions, he relies upon definition of the ‘document and evidence’ as appearing in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that learned Judge of the Trial Court observed that while dealing with the interim application for temporary injunction, Court is required to see prima facie case and there is no reason to permit playing videography or look into video-clip or videography at the preliminary stage of considering application for temporary injunction. 5. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mandlik, definition of evidence reads thus :- “Evidence” means and includes –– (1) ……………………………. (2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court;] such documents are called documentary evidence. 2 [the expressions “Certifying Authority”, “3[electronic signature]”, 4[(Electronic Signature Certificate], “electronic form”, “electronic records”, “information”, “secure electronic record”, “secure digital signature” and “subscriber” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).] 3 wp 516.25.odt 6. Considering aforesaid definition of evidence, the videography can be admitted in evidence subject to rigors as to admission of such document. It is, therefore, within discretion of the Court to refer any Electronic Evidence at any stage of the proceeding and form prima facie opinion as regards to contents thereof. There cannot be straight jacket formula that electronic evidence cannot be considered unless proved at the trial. The Court while exercising discretionary jurisdiction at the stage of granting temporary injunction can definitely look to the electronic document and on prima facie consideration, record a finding or pass the order. 7. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to place on record and play videography in support of his contentions, however, it would be a discretion of the Court to accept or rely upon the same while passing the impugned order and with rider that petitioner files certificate under section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ) Judge … aaa-