Md. Khalid v. Mohammed Khaja Aijaz Ali, 2026

The respondent, Mohammed Khaja Aijaz Ali, had instituted O.S. No. 260 of 2017 before the XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

The suit concerned recovery of an amount invested in the business of the petitioner, Md. Khalid, under a partnership/business arrangement.

The respondent claimed recovery of ₹8,00,000 as the invested amount, ₹4,40,000 towards profits for the period from 11 November 2016 to 1 March 2017, along with interest at 24% per annum. 

During the stage of the defendant's evidence, Md. Khalid sought permission under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC to bring certain electronic records on the court record.

The documents included: Emails exchanged between the petitioner and respondent; Emails exchanged with the parties' tax consultant concerning the draft business agreement; WhatsApp conversations between the petitioner and respondent; and WhatsApp conversations between the petitioner and the respondent's son. 

The petitioner furnished a self-certificate under Section 65B concerning the electronic records.

The trial court rejected the application, holding, among other things, that the original device had not been produced and that the required Section 65B(4) certificate from the concerned authority had not been produced. 

Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner approached the Telangana High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 

Justice Renuka Yara found that the trial court had incorrectly rejected the petitioner's application for receiving the emails and WhatsApp messages.

The High Court particularly examined Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. It held that the provision contemplated alternative methods for establishing the relevant electronic record. In the circumstances of this case, where the electronic communications originated from the petitioner's own BlackBerry device, the petitioner, being the owner and person managing the device, could furnish the requisite certificate concerning the electronic records. 

The Court also found that the pleadings provided a sufficient foundation for the electronic evidence. The written statement referred to emails and SMS communications, while the document list accompanying the written statement contained screenshots of messages, WhatsApp communications and emails. 

Set aside the trial court's order dated 17 August 2023;

Allowed I.A. No. 83 of 2023;

Permitted the electronic records to be received; and

Ordered that there would be no order as to costs. 

Justice Renuka Yara interpreted this provision as providing alternative routes for proving the electronic record. Where the relevant device is personally owned and managed by the person producing the evidence, that person may provide the certificate concerning the electronic record.

The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.

The High Court concluded that the trial court had placed an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation on the requirement of Section 65B(4). According to the High Court, the petitioner had followed one of the permissible alternatives by providing his own certificate concerning electronic communications generated from his personal device.

An important factual feature was that the emails and WhatsApp conversations were claimed to have originated from the petitioner's BlackBerry mobile phone, which he owned and managed.

The Court therefore distinguished the situation from one where electronic records are generated or maintained by a third-party/public computer system and the litigant has no control over the relevant device or activities.

The respondent argued that the petitioner had not laid the necessary foundation in his written statement for relying upon the electronic records.

The High Court rejected this argument. It noted that the written statement itself referred to emails and SMS communications, and the document list accompanying the written statement contained screenshots of text messages, WhatsApp messages and emails. Therefore, there was sufficient pleading foundation for the proposed electronic evidence.

The respondent also argued that the electronic communications had been created after the institution of the suit.

The Court examined the dates of the proposed electronic records and found that the communications substantially related to November and December 2016, with only a few WhatsApp messages extending into January 2017. Consequently, the Court did not accept the objection that the documents were all created after the suit had been instituted.

The petitioner explained that he had initially intended to use the communications while confronting the respondent during cross-examination. When the communications were denied, he approached the Court for permission to formally receive the documents.

The High Court considered this explanation plausible and did not treat the delay as sufficient reason to reject the evidence.

The decision illustrates the interaction between procedural rules governing production of documents and the substantive requirements for proving electronic evidence.

The Court's approach indicates that procedural requirements should not be interpreted in a manner that creates an unnecessary barrier where the statutory requirements concerning authenticity and the source of electronic evidence can otherwise be satisfied.

The judgment is significant because modern civil litigation increasingly involves WhatsApp messages, emails, screenshots and other digital communications.

The decision clarifies, in the factual circumstances before the Court, that a person who owns and manages the device from which electronic records originate may be able to provide the relevant Section 65B(4) certification himself rather than obtaining certification from an unrelated external authority.

The judgment should be understood in the context of the facts before the Court, particularly the fact that the electronic communications originated from the petitioner's own device and that the Court examined the pleadings and surrounding circumstances.

It should not be read as eliminating all statutory requirements concerning the admissibility or authenticity of electronic evidence.

The judgment specifically applied Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because the proceedings and evidentiary question arose in that statutory context. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 subsequently replaced the Indian Evidence Act for the new evidentiary regime from 1 July 2024. Accordingly, practitioners dealing with newer proceedings must separately consider the corresponding provisions of the BSA.