Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Delhi High Court on Admission of Audio Recordings as Evidence under CPC.

Update / Judgement Date

27 Oct 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

2 min read

Civil LawOther Legal Matters
Delhi High Court on Admission of Audio Recordings as Evidence under CPC.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging trial court orders that allowed the defendant to produce a pen drive containing alleged audio recordings under Order XI Rule 1 and Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. The Court held that the admissibility and authenticity of such electronic evidence should be tested during trial, and the plaintiff retains the right to cross-examine witnesses. Preventing the defendant from proving the recordings would be premature and unjustified.


Background:
  1. The petitioner, Jai Maa Vaishno Steel, filed a recovery suit for ₹4,00,000 against the respondent, alleging partial non-payment for building material worth ₹8,50,000.
  2. The respondent contended that the total material supplied was only worth ₹4,50,000, which had already been paid in full, and alleged fabrication of an invoice dated 09.03.2021.
  3. During cross-examination, the plaintiff denied knowledge of one Sanjay @ Puran Chand. The respondent later discovered an audio recording allegedly capturing a conversation between the parties mentioning Sanjay @ Puran Chand and an amount of ₹3,50,000.
  4. The respondent sought to place on record the pen drive containing these recordings. The trial court allowed this request on 08.07.2025, and later dismissed the plaintiff’s review petition on 24.09.2025.


Court’s Observations:
  1. The trial court rightly permitted the respondent to prove the recordings, as their genuineness and relevance can only be determined during trial.
  2. The alleged conversations, dated 10.03.2025, were subsequent to the commencement of trial and hence could not have been produced earlier.
  3. The question of whether the recordings are genuine or fabricated is a matter of evidence and cross-examination, not of preliminary rejection.
  4. The review plea was correctly dismissed, as it did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record.


Decision:
  1. The Delhi High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s orders.
  2. Petition and connected applications were dismissed.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Order XI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Discovery and production of documents.
  2. Order XVI Rule 1, CPC: Summoning and attendance of witnesses.
  3. Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admissibility of electronic records.

Case: Jai Maa Vaishno Steel through Proprietor Ms. Kamlesh Devi v. Gulshan Gugnani

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Case No.: CM(M) 2046/2025, CM APPL. 66468/2025, 66467/2025 & 66466/2025