RLW2011(3)SC2457, 2011(4)SCALE61,, (2011)11SCC275, [2011]4SCR31, 2011(3)ALLMR(SC)445, 2011 (86) ALR 457, 2011 3 AWC3104SC, 2011 (1) CG.L.R.W. 501, 2011(1) CGBCLJ 254, (SCSuppl)2011(5)CHN28, 2011(3)CTC422, JT2011(4)SC38, 2011(2)KCCRSN132, 2011(2)KLJ240, 2011-3-LW738, 2011(2)PLJR138, 2011(2)RCR(Civil)875, 2011 113 RD414

In this case, we are satisfied that in the interests of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court, the trial court ought to have considered whether it was necessary to re-open the evidence and if so, in what manner and to what extent further evidence should be permitted in exercise of its power under Section 151 of the Code. The court ought to have also considered whether it should straightway recall PW1 and PW2 and permit the Appellant to confront the said recorded evidence to the said witnesses or whether it should first receive such evidence by requiring its proof of its authenticity and only then permit it to be confronted to the witnesses (PW1 and PW2). In view of the above, these appeals are allowed in part. The orders of the High Court and Trial Court dismissing IA No. 216/2009 under Section 151of the Code are set aside. The orders are affirmed in regard to the dismissal of IA No. 217/2009 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code. The trial court shall now consider IA No. 216/2009 afresh in accordance with law.

Information Technology Act, 2000 &  Indian Evidence Act, 1872