3.Now the only question is of the relevant format, i.e., whether
this should be given to the Plaintiff in Digibeta format or in DVD
format. There is a cost element to both. The Digibeta costs Rs.
68,700/- and DVD costs Rs. 42,365/- to supply. By its letter dated
15th April 2016, the Advocates on record for the 2nd Defendant
have offered the Plaintiff the choice of either format but against
payment of these costs. I do not see how the Plaintiff’s gathering of
evidentiary material can be held up on this basis. There is no doubt
that these tapes are evidence and are relevant. There is also no
doubt that the evidence exists and is in the possession of the 2nd
Defendant. It cannot be kept from production in evidence by the
Plaintiff only on the ground of costs. I could, for instance, under our
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, compel the production of this
evidence from the 2nd Defendant given that the 2nd Defendant
acknowledges the existence of this material. Were I to do so, there
would be no question of paying the 2nd Defendant ‘costs’. If that be
so, then I do not see how the question arises of the Plaintiff having
to pay costs for evidence legitimately required for the proper
determination of the suit. I believe Ms. Jain for the Plaintiff is
completely correct in her submissions in this behalf. She has, with
her usual fairness, suggested that she will make the necessary formal
application in this regard. While Ms. Jain’s approach is to be
commended, I do not think it is necessary to further delay matters.
