IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5109 OF 2009 Between : Dodla Narendra Reddy .... PETITIONER A N D Kandimalla Manoj …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5109 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 05.10.2009, in I.A.No.491 of 2008 in O.S.No.523 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, and the respondent herein is the defendant, before the trial Court. For better appreciation of fact, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as arrayed in the suit. 3. The defendant filed the application, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), read with Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) to permit him to record the voice of the plaintiff in a magnetic tape or compact disc for comparison with that of the contents of recorded voice of the same person already existing in a magnetic tape produced before the Court for sending the same to expert, for opinion after comparison, whether both the voices are similar or different. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently contended that the promissory note, dated 15.06.2002, was executed in the year 2002, whereas the alleged conversation between the petitioner and the brother-in-law of the respondent took place in the year 2004; that, it is not a contemporary statement made by the petitioner and it has no relevancy and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contended that in view of the fact that there is relevancy with regard to the conversation between the petitioner and the brother-in-law of the respondent in relation to the suit transaction and taking the specimen voice of the petitioner so as to test that voice in the cassette by an expert is necessary; that the relevancy and admissibility of tape recorded conversation can be decided at later point of time; and that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for the interference by this Court, therefore, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6. The suit is based upon a promissory note. Two years after execution of the promissory note, it seems the conversation between the plaintiff and brother-in-law of the defendant has been recorded in a cassette. While P.W.1 was being cross-examined in the Court, the defendant’s counsel played the cassette so as to identify the voice of the plaintiff . After playing the cassette, the plaintiff denied the same therefore, the petition is filed to take the sample voice of the plaintiff so as to compare the same with the voice in the cassette, by an expert. 7. The law is well settled with regard to the admissibility of tape recorder conversation as laid down in the decision reported in Tukaram S.Dighole V. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate[1], wherein it was held thus: “In R.V.Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All E.R.464, it was said that it would be wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques and new devices, provided the accuracy of the recording can be proved and the voices recorded are properly identified. Such evidence should always be regarded with some caution and assessed in the light of all the circumstances of each case. a) the voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it. (a) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record. (c The subject-matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act.” 8. The relevancy and admissibility of the conversation in the cassette recorder voice between petitioner and brother-in-law of respondent can be decided along with the other evidence that may be adduced in the suit. It is too early to decide whether it is the voice of the petitioner is found in the cassette or not. 9. No doubt Section 7 of the Act reads that the facts in issue should be contemporaneous to the fact involved in the suit. But, at the same time, whether the facts-in-issue are contemporaneous to the relevant fact or not, has to be decided after receipt of the information from the expert. Therefore, whether the conversion between the plaintiff and the brother-in-law of the defendant falls under Section 7 of the Act or under any other provisions of the Act, alone has to be decided after the expert opinion. Therefore, the decision in Tukaram S.Dighole’s case relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff applies only when the expert gives the opinion. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 01, 2011. YVL [1] 2010(4) SCJ 401